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

1991 Supreme(Kar) 267

N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA, S.MOHAN
THIMMARAYASWAMY – Appellant
Versus
GURUMURTHY – Respondent


Advocates:
Jayaprakash Babu, MOHANDAS N.HEADE, N.K.Gupta, T.K.Suryanarayana Rao

S. MOHAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS is rather a peculiar case in which the appellant sangha merely claims that in the allotment of a site by the Local Mandal Panchayath in favour of the first respondent, it has violated the norms set out under Section 50 of the Village panchayath Act. Where therefore no applications are invited and no notice was given to the general public, nor was there any sanction under section 50 of the Act from the Government to enable the Panchayath to make allotment, it is open to the appellant-rate payer to question the validity of allotment. This was the strong argument put forth by Sri Mohandas N. Hegde. In support of this he has relied on AIR 1949 Bom bay 229, The Municipal Corporation for the City of bombay and Another - Appellants v Govind Laxman savant - Respondent, wherein it had been held that a rate payer who is interested in local body, could question if the funds were not utilised in the proper way. Therefore he could maintain the writ petition.

( 2 ) WE have to note in this case that the appellantis not even an individual tax payer, but yuvaka Rytha Sangha, an association. In our considered view, therefore, the appellant cannot claim to be a rate payer.

( 3




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