S.MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P.CHALY
P. B. Pradeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Maradu Municipality Represented By Its Secretary, Maradu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SHAJI P.CHALY, J.
This appeal is preferred by petitioners in the writ petition challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17262/2020 dated 17.1.0222, whereby the learned Single dismissed the writ petition holding that the property shown in a scheme as reserved for roads is not liable to be purchased by the Municipality/Government invoking section 67 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 2016. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows;
2. According to the appellants, they are the absolute owners in possession of an extent of 24.73 Ares comprised in Re.Sy. Nos.221/4-2, 221/4-2-2, 221/4-2-2-2, 221/5-2-2, 221/5-3, 221/9, 221/10 and 221/12 of Maradu Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, as per document Nos.3612/2001, 1192/1986, 2145/2002, 2101/2001 and Settlement Deed Nos.665/2018, 666/2018 and 667/2018 of Maradu Sub Registrar Office.
3. It is the case of the appellants that being desirous of developing the properties and construct a multistoried residential complex they entered into a joint venture agreement with the 5th petitioner. Thereupon, appellants authorised the 5th petitioner builder - Abad Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra [(2020) 9 SCC 356]
Padmini v. State of Kerala [1999 (3) KLT 465]
Raju S. Jethmalani and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2005) 11 SCC 222]
Regional Town Planner and Another v. Muhammed Rasheed and Others [2019(3) KHC 987(DB)]
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.