Category: Municipal Laws

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.…

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 26 – HELD The High Court, mainly on the ground that the Planning Authority has not prepared a draft development plan within the time prescribed under Section 26 of the MRTP Act, has allowed the writ petition with a further direction that the competent authority shall undertake the remaining work relating to preparation of draft development plan and submit to the State Government for sanction. – We are of the view that the said aspects need not be gone into at this stage by this Court. Chapter III of the MRTP Act deals with the preparation of development plan and as per Section 38 of the MRTP Act development plan is to be revised at least once in twenty years. We are of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned order under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE MAYOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. GOVIND BAJIRAO NAVPUTE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash…

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Section 44 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 285 – Property tax – Liability -HELD This Court allow these appeals set aside the judgment of the High Court and held that the appellant is exempted and not liable to pay property tax under 1888 Act. However, the appellant is liable to pay services charges for the services rendered by the Corporation and it shall be open for the respondents to conduct an enquiry in accordance with provision of Section 144 of 1888

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. BRIHANMUMBAI MAHANAGAR PALIKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan And M.R. Shah, JJ.…

Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 – Section 351 – Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Section 3Z(2)(i) – Transferable Development Rights – legal heirs of the original owner of the land were the petitioners in one writ petition and eleven persons claiming to be the tenants, were the petitioners in the other writ petitions – Insofar as persons claiming to be the owners of the land are concerned, the Municipal Corporation itself had conceded before the High Court that they were willing to offer TDR.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PANNA MAHESH CHANDRA DAVE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V.…

You missed