Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)
Sat Pal And Others vs The Municipal Corporation on 13 August, 2013 cites

Darshan Kaur vs The Amritsar Primary Cooperative ... on 1 December, 2009

In the instant case, after appreciating the evidence on record, both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the street is in existence and the appellants have failed to prove that this is not a street and it has been encroached by the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. From the above, it is clear that the site in dispute is a street in view of Section 2 (56) of the Act, 1976, as on both the sides, the houses are in existence and there is a drain alongside the metalled road and the said metalled road connects Jalandhar-Ferozepur Road. The public has access to this road. Furthermore, there is a categoric evidence that the said road was entered in the field book pertaining to the entry of streets and no one raised a little finger. In view of Section 2 (43) of the Act, 1976, the said street has been declared "public street" and as such the appellant has not even challenged that this is not a "street". The contention of learned counsel for appellant that to know the factual position, Local Commissioner could have been appointed to visit the spot and submit report regarding encroachment, if any, is misconceived. RSA No.1255 of 1986 16 The appellants while claiming the relief of mandatory injunction should positively prove that certain part has been encroached upon. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellants on Darshan Kaur vs. The Amritsar Primay Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Limited Amritsar and another The Punjab Law Reporter Vol.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 20 - R K Jain - Full Document

The Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank ... vs Om Parkash @ Kapil Dev S/O Jeewan Dass on 5 May, 2010

This Court in The Sangrur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Om Parkash @ Kapil Dev, RSA No.2134 of 2006, decided on 05.05.2010 has held that when Municipal Corporation has not been objected from laying the bricklining etc., it is implied that owner has consented to use the street as "public street". This Court has observed as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - R K Garg - Full Document
1