SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 2139

G.T.NANAVATI, K.RAMASWAMY
Faridabad Complex Administration – Appellant
Versus
Yadu – Respondent


ORDER

These appeals by special leave arise from the judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on July 17, 1985 and September 11, 1985 dismissing the appeals in limine.

2. The undisputed facts are that one Biharilal and Mahipal attempted to construct shops on the lands in question. Notices were issued to them for unauthorised construction. Thereafter, admittedly, they sold the lands to the respondents who filed suits for injunction restraining the appellant from demolishing the construction made by them on the premises that Section 208 of the Haryana Municipalities Act, 1973 (for short, the Act ) requires notice to be given within six months from the date of unauthorised construction. Since, admittedly, the notice was issued to Biharilal on march 18, 1982 and constructions were made sometime in February 1981, it was beyond the period of limitation. That plea found favour with the courts below and accordingly the trial Court as well as the appellate Court decreed the suit and affirmed the same. The High Court dismissed the second appeals in limine. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

3. It is not disputed that the appellant is the successor in interest by operation of Farida










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top