Category: Municipal Laws

The Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – the capital value of the land and building must be based on situation “in presenti”- in projects which are in progress, the value addition to the property would be ongoing feature. However, it would mean that the governing principle must be the actual use and not the intended use in future.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI.…

Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 – Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation will have the power to suspend or initiate departmental proceedings against an Additional Municipal Commissioner (AMC), who is an officer, superior in rank to the Assistant Commissioner

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KALYAN DOMBIVALI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. SANJAY GAJANAN GHARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…

Such communication has come on record from the official source which would carry presumption of correctness under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that the official acts have been regularly performed. The original record was not necessarily required to be proved by summoning the Government officials as such document was produced by the officials of the Municipal Committee from the official record.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, BARWALA, DISTRICT HISAR, HARYANA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY/PRESIDENT — Appellant Vs. JAI NARAYAN AND COMPANY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 243Q(2) – Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 – Section 5 – Public notification – Declaration of Gram Panchayat as a Municipal Board – HELD State Government had exercised powers to establish Municipality in terms of Section 5 of the Municipalities Act – Order of High Court is clearly erroneous and unsustainable in law – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. ASHOK KHETOLIYA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Rights of the Council are to administer the properties as a delegate of the Government of India and not as an owner as there were no transfer of rights in the markets in favour of the Council. Markets transferred by the Government of India to the Council have to be dealt independently and separately than the properties owned by the Council as the Council has no title over such markets as it has been asked only to manage them on behalf of the Government of India – Order of eviction upheld.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL — Appellant Vs. GANGA DEVI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…

Demolition of building – Damages – Finding of the High Court that the building was demolished without giving clear three days’ notice is partly correct – Once the order was passed by the Corporation on 5.1.1995 and was put on the means of communication, the date of actual receipt of notice is insignificant as the receipt could be delayed by the recipient, though there is no such attempt or finding. Rupees 5 Lakhs as compensation granted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ABDUL KHUDDUS — Appellant Vs. H.M. CHANDIRAMANI (DEAD) THR LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

West Bengal Municipal Act, 1996 – Sections 217 and 218 – Demolition of illegal construction – Sanction of building plan was cancel by municipal authorities – There is no error committed by the High Court in holding that the order by which action was directed to be initiated under Section 218 of the Act for demolition of the structure does not survive as the basis of the said order was the order passed by the Municipality.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEBABRATA SAHA — Appellant Vs. SERAMPORE MUNICIPALITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Development Control Rules for Greater Bombay, 1967 – Claim for construction of open spaces – Open spaces are required to be left for an approval of layout or for the purpose of creating lung space for the owners of other plots where constructions are permitted. HELD It is fairly well settled that in an approved layout, the open spaces which are left, are to be continued in that manner alone and no construction can be permitted in such open spaces. Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANJUMAN E SHIATE ALI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. GULMOHAR AREA SOCIETIES WELFARE GROUP AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M.…

You missed

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.