1. Challenge to High Court order directing removal of encroachment and demolition from a public park without prior survey. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., C.K. THAKKER AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.
MADHAVRAO SCINDIA (DEAD) BY LRS. - Petitioner
Versus
RAMESH JATAV AND OTHERS - Respondents.
SLP (C) No. 14391 of 2005
Decided on August 8, 2005
Advocates appeared
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Senior Advocate (Ankur Mody, Ms lndu Malhotra, Dheeraj Nair and
Vikas Mehta, Advocates) for the Petitioner.
1. Challenge to High Court order directing removal of encroachment and demolition from a public park without prior survey. (Para 1 , 3 )
2. Petitioners argued the High Court order was premature, vague, and demolition could not be ordered without specific finding of encroachment. (Para 1 )
3. Demolition or encroachment removal orders require prior identification of boundaries and survey in presence of affected parties. (Para 3 )
4. High Court order stayed until Municipal Corporation surveys and identifies boundaries and encroachments in presence of parties. (Para 3 )
No; the Supreme Court stayed the High Court order until the Municipal Corporation identifies boundaries and measures encroachment in presence of affected parties. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order of the High Court has been passed with undue haste. Some of the directions made by the High Court are vague and premature. As to para 11, it is submitted that no encroachment could have been directed to be removed and no demolition could have been ordered without recording a specific finding in that regard. The Municipal Corporation ought to have been directed to carry out a survey in the presence of the parties and identify encroachment and unauthorised construction, if any, so that the aggrieved party could have the remedy of approaching the civil court. As to para 10, it is submitted that that direction, if any, was called for against O.P. Saraswat who is in illegal possession of land in excess of what he is entitled to.
2. Issue notice to Respondents 1 to 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the present notice is not required to be issued to Respondents 12 to 24.
3. Until further orders, it is directed that the direction made by the High Court shall remain stayed until the Municipal Corporation has identified the boundaries of the land alleged to be public park and clearly identified, by taking measurements, the encroachment, if any. Needless to say such survey and identification shall have to be done in the presence of the parties likely to be affected adversely by the action of the Municipal Corporation.
Court Masters
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top