C. T. RAVIKUMAR, K. HARIPAL
District Town Planner, Office of The District Town Planner, Civil Station, Thrissur – Appellant
Versus
T. O. Linson, S/O. T. L. Ouseph – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravikumar, J.
The above appeal is directed against judgment dated 01.02.2019 in W.P.(C).No. 42445 of 2018. The third respondent in the said writ petition is the appellant herein. In fact, it is the perennial problem of deprival of the right of use of the land for residential purpose that made the first respondent herein to file the said writ petition. His application for building permit was rejected on the second occasion also, citing the existence of draft master plan for construction of an outer ring road for Thrissur Town. He is the owner in possession of 30.47 Ares of land comprised in Re-sy. Nos.666/4P, 666/5, 666/4, 666/3, 941/4-Re and 666/8 of Ollukkara village in Thrissur Taluk. The application submitted for permit for residential construction was rejected as per Ext.P7 dated 10.01.2018. A perusal of the same would reveal that existence of a proposal for construction of ring road as per the draft master plan prepared by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation and forwarded for approval of the State Government is the reason for rejecting the said application. Earlier, the first respondent, the writ petitioner had submitted an application for the very same purpose on 11.8
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan AIR 1997 SC 152
Chameli Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Collector (District Magistrate), Allahabad v. Raja Ram Jaiswal
J.P Ravidas & ors. v. Navyuvak Harijan Uthapan Multi Unit Industrial Co.op. Society Ltd.
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat
Raju S. Jethmalani and others v. State of Maharashtra and others
Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimlal Totame
U.P Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & another v. Friends Co.op. Housing Society Ltd.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.