Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Maharashtra Ekta Hawkers Union VS Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai...
Checking relevance for Tarachand Logistic Solutions Limited VS State Of Andhra Pradesh...
Checking relevance for BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS THE AIR CRAFT EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Joy Auto Works VS Sumer Builders (P) Ltd. ...
Joy Auto Works VS Sumer Builders (P) Ltd. - 2009 3 Supreme 83 : Municipal authorities cannot block access to a public road for residents if the plot is land-locked and the municipal road has not yet been constructed. In such cases, the owner of the land-locked plot is entitled to a right of way until the disposal of the suit or the construction of the municipal road, whichever comes earlier, as per Section 13 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882.Checking relevance for NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD VS KHOSMENDIR SINGH GAHUNIA...
NATIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD VS KHOSMENDIR SINGH GAHUNIA - 2016 6 Supreme 571 : Municipal authorities cannot legally block access to a public road for residents. In the case at hand, the Delhi High Court ruled that the closure of Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Marg—a public road—by NBCC (a government agency) was unlawful, as it denied residents access to essential public amenities and transportation routes. The court found that the road had been used by residents for over 60 years and was a public street under the NDMC Act 1994. The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the decision to close the road could not be faulted, indicating that such closures without legal justification are impermissible. Therefore, municipal authorities or their agents cannot unilaterally block access to a public road without lawful authority and due process.Checking relevance for Municipal Committee. Karnal VS Nirmala Devi...
Checking relevance for Olga Tellis VS Bombay Municipal Corporation...
Olga Tellis VS Bombay Municipal Corporation - 1985 0 Supreme(SC) 226 : Municipal authorities cannot block access to public roads for residents, as the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to access public spaces such as pavements and footpaths, which are essential for public passage. The Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, permits removal of encroachments on pavements only if they obstruct public access, but the procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable. The law allows removal of encroachments without notice only when they violate specific provisions (e.g., Sections 312, 313, 314), and such removal is justified only to preserve public access. Therefore, blocking access to public roads for residents would violate the constitutional right to life and personal liberty, and any such action must comply with a fair and reasonable procedure established by law.Checking relevance for Anna Enclave Residents Welfare Association VS State of Tamil Nadu...
Anna Enclave Residents Welfare Association VS State of Tamil Nadu - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 3382 : Municipal authorities cannot block access to a public road for residents. The court held that the vesting of a public street in the municipal council is only for the purpose of maintaining it properly as a public street, and does not confer any power on the municipality to treat it as private property or to obstruct access. Owners of houses abutting on a public street have a right of access to and from the public street, and if the municipality interferes with this right, the owners have an actionable claim. Therefore, municipal authorities are not entitled to block access to public roads for residents, even if the roads are vested with them.Checking relevance for Arulmighu Palapattarai Mariamman Tirukoil, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Namakkal VS Pappayee...
Arulmighu Palapattarai Mariamman Tirukoil, Rep. by its Executive Officer, Namakkal VS Pappayee - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1387 : Municipal authorities cannot block access to a public road for residents. The court held that the owner of a property adjacent to a public street has the right of access to such street at any point where their land actually touches it. This right is a private right distinct from the public right of way, and it cannot be obstructed by any party, including municipal authorities. The judgment emphasizes that even if a temple or other entity encroaches upon a public street, the courts will direct removal of such encroachments to safeguard public interest and uphold the rule of law. Therefore, municipal authorities, as custodians of public streets, are bound by this principle and cannot unilaterally block access for residents.
