Search Results for "Encroachment removal"

357 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 357 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Directs Authorities to Consider Representation on Encroachment Removal in Public Interest. Writ of Mandamus issued to consider representation within three months, as non-consideration amounts to dereliction of duty under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, Andiyappan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, se...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Directs Authorities to Consider Representation on Pathway Encroachment — Mandamus Issued for Disposal Within Three Months. Statutory Authority Has Duty to Consider Representation; Non-Consideration Amounts to Dereliction of Duty Under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

The petitioner, Balachandran, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court s...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Directs Statutory Authority to Consider Representation on Encroachment Allegations in Public Road. Non-Consideration of Representation Amounts to Dereliction of Duty Under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

The petitioner, S. Mariyappan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar to Consider Representation on Encroachment Allegations in Public Pathway. Non-consideration of representation by statutory authority amounts to dereliction of duty, justifying a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, N.G. Seenivasan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Cour...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Trial Court's Refusal to Reopen Evidence in Civil Suit — No Error in Discretion Exercised Under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.

The petitioners, defendants in a civil suit, challenged the order of the trial court dated 28.2.2014 rejecting their application under Order 18 Rule 1...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition for Possession of Allotted Plot Due to Laches and Delay. Petitioners' claim for possession of final plot No.158 fails as they did not pursue remedy for over 20 years after allotment in 1973.

The petitioners, legal heirs of late Matadin Mangali Halwai, filed a writ petition seeking possession of final plot No.158 admeasuring 429.19 sq.mts. ...