Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for A. Abdul Farook VS Municipal Council, Perambalur...
Checking relevance for Gunasekaran VS Divisional Engineer National Highways...
Gunasekaran VS Divisional Engineer National Highways - 2021 0 Supreme(SC) 966 : The municipality does not have the authority to take action against encroachment into national highways. The power to initiate proceedings for removal of encroachment over national highways is vested exclusively under Section 26 of the National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, which applies only to the Highway Authority constituted under Section 3 of that Act or any officer authorized by it. The show cause notices issued by officers acting under the Tamil Nadu State Highway Act, 2001, were held unauthorized and beyond jurisdiction because the authority issuing them was not the one contemplated under Section 26 of the 2002 Act. Therefore, a municipality, not being the Highway Authority or an officer authorized by it, lacks statutory power to take action against encroachments on national highways.Checking relevance for Asikali Akbarali Gilani etc. VS Nasirhusain Mahebubbhai Chauhan...
Checking relevance for In Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash VS . ...
In Re: Manoj Tibrewal Akash VS . - 2024 8 Supreme 563 : Yes, a municipality can take action against encroachment into a national highway, but such action must be carried out in accordance with due process of law and in compliance with existing municipal laws and town-planning legislation. The demolition of property must not be arbitrary or high-handed, and must be preceded by proper procedures including written notice, disclosure of the basis of demarcation, and verification of encroachment. The State cannot rely solely on an affidavit stating ''''encroachment'''' without producing material evidence of the original width of the highway, the extent of encroachment, or prior acquisition of land. Any action must be justified and proportionate, and cannot exceed the area of actual encroachment. The use of bulldozers for demolition without due process constitutes ''''bulldozer justice,'''' which is unacceptable under the rule of law. Public accountability for officials involved in such actions is mandatory.Checking relevance for Gyan Prakash VS Union of India...
Checking relevance for M. M. Shanmugam VS A. K. D. Kumar...
Checking relevance for Harnam Singh Alias Rinku Chandel VS State Of H P & Ors. ...
Harnam Singh Alias Rinku Chandel VS State Of H P & Ors. - 2021 0 Supreme(HP) 299 : Yes, the municipality has the authority to take action against encroachment into national highway land. The court held that public properties such as footpaths, streets, and pavements on national highways are intended for the convenience of the general public and cannot be used for private purposes. The competent authority, including municipal bodies, has a duty to promptly remove encroachments on highways. The court emphasized zero tolerance for unauthorized encroachments and directed authorities to ensure removal of all encroachments on highways within three months. This authority is supported by precedents from the Supreme Court, including Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., which affirm that encroachments on public property, including pavements and footpaths, must be removed to ensure free passage of traffic and pedestrian safety.Checking relevance for Tuticorin Vegetable Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd. VS Tuticorin Municpal Corporation...
Checking relevance for Roshan Lal VS D. D. A. (Delhi Development Authority)...
Checking relevance for High Court on its own motion (In the matter of Jilani Building at Bhiwandi) VS Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation...
Checking relevance for Ramaraju S/o. N. A. Subbaraja & Another VS The State of Tamilnadu & Others...
Ramaraju S/o. N. A. Subbaraja & Another VS The State of Tamilnadu & Others - 2005 0 Supreme(Mad) 736 : Yes, the municipality can take action against encroachment into national highways. The judgment confirms that encroachments on public lands, including those on national highways, must be removed following due process of law. It clarifies the procedures for eviction from road margins and roadsides under the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, and emphasizes that such actions must comply with statutory provisions and include reasonable notice. The judgment also affirms that no legal title is conferred by payment of property tax or provision of utilities, reinforcing the authority of public bodies to act against unauthorized occupation of national highway land.Checking relevance for Royal Parasdise Hotel (P) LTD. VS State Of Haryana...
Royal Parasdise Hotel (P) LTD. VS State Of Haryana - 2006 6 Supreme 694 : The document confirms that authorities, including municipal authorities, cannot condone or reward illegal construction or encroachment into controlled areas near highways, even if such areas are later included within a municipality. Specifically, it states that no authority, whether the highway authority or the municipal authority, is entitled to reward a person indulging in such illegal activity. The court explicitly rejected an argument that inclusion of the area in Karnal Municipality would justify regularization of unauthorized construction, emphasizing that illegality and violation of the Punjab Scheduled Road and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963, cannot be condoned by any authority. Therefore, the municipality cannot take action to regularize or condone encroachment into a national highway or its controlled areas; rather, it is barred from rewarding such violations.
