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

2006 Supreme(Bom) 1889

F.I.REBELLO, V.K.TAHILRAMANI
Sadanand Varde – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


JUDGMENT:- The Petitioners are tax payers of the State of Maharashtra and ratepayers of Respondent No.2. All of them are nationals and citizens of India, and have been active in agitating various social issues. By the present petition, they have sought quashing of notification dated 25th January, 1999, whereby modifications have been made to the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991. Regulation 31 was modified by adding a proviso making non applicable height restrictions for reconstruction and redevelopment of old buildings undertaken under Regulations 33(7), 33(8) and 33(9) and which are not affected by the Costal Regulation Zone Notification dated 19th February 1991, issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, and orders issued from time to time. Similarly, Regulation 59 was modified, pursuant to which restrictions on height were not to be made applicable for reconstruction and redevelopment of old buildings undertaken under Regulations 33(7), 33(8) and 33(9) of the Regulations, which are not affected by the Costal Regulation Zone, dated 19th February, 1991. Similarly, modification was made to Regulation 67, making applicable the prov
















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