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

1976 Supreme(Guj) 72

S.OBUL REDDY, J.B.MEHTA, B.K.MEHTA
DUNGARLAL HARICHAND – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: J.R.NANAVATI, K.S.NANAVATI

B. K. MEHTA, J. B. MEHTA, S. OBUL REDDI, J.

( 1 ) THIS Special Civil Application has been referred to a Full Bench by a Division Bench consisting of P. N. Bhagwati C. J. (as he then was) and M. U. Shah J. as in their opinion the two decisions rendered by this Court in KAUSHIKPRASAD V. AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (1970) 11 G. L. R. 993 AND MOHANLAL JESINGBHAI V. P. J. PATEL (1970) 11 G. L. R. 1035 to which one of them (Bhagwati C. J.) was a party required reconsideration as the attention of the Court was not drawn to certain provisions and particularly sec. 56 of the Bombay Town Planning Act which seemed to suggest that the view taken by them may not be correct.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts leading to the filing of this petition may briefly be stated The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation by a notification dated July 19 1951 declared its intention to make a Town Planning Scheme under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 9 of Bombay Town Planning Act 1915 in respect of the area of land shown in Plan No. 40 marked and verged blue dated July 12 1951 By this notification the Corporation invited objections or suggestions from any person likely to be affected by the Scheme with respect to the declaration. On































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