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

2005 Supreme(SC) 785

ASHOK BHAN, A.K.MATHUR
Raju S. Jethmalani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent


Judgment

A.K. Mathur, J.—These appeals are ­directed against orders passed by learned ­Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay dated September 4, 1997 and September 8, 1999.

2. Initially a writ petition was filed before the High Court of Bombay by way of public interest litigation by the residents of Salisbury park and persons living around that area challenging the notification dated February 12, 1993 whereby an area admeasuring 1.50 acres of land was de-reserved from plot No. 438 of Salisbury Park within the Municipal limits of Pune which was reserved as a garden in the development plan. In order to promote ecology and to have congenial environment, a development plan was prepared on August 15, 1986 for Pune city under the erstwhile provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 and that development plan was carried out under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter to be referred to as the “1966 Act”) where under on September 18, 1982 a draft development plan was published by the Municipal Corporation of Pune purported to be under Section 26(1) of the 1966 Act. In that development plan Plot Nos. 437 and 438 were earmarked for the purposes of park and





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