WRIT PETITION NO.16958 OF 2024
21 Jun 2025...
Search Results for "demolition plan"
472 result(s) found
Found 472 result(s)
High Court
Madras High Court Allows Writ Petition Directing Coimbatore Corporation to Remove Unauthorised Construction of Pallivasal. Court Holds That Construction Without Planning Permission Is Illegal and Must Be Removed, Permitting Respondents to Apply for Building Plan Permission Afresh.
5 Feb 2025The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a licensed building engineer and active participant in the activities of...
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Landlord-Tenant Dispute Over Executability of Possession Decree Against Municipal Corporation. Decree for Possession of Immovable Property Held Executable Against Judgment-Debtor Despite Corporation's Claim of Public Purpose.
1 Jan 2023The case involves a dispute between the appellant (original plaintiff, now deceased and represented by legal representatives) and the respondent, Muni...
- 99
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Mutation Entry in Land Revenue Records — Held That Mutation Entry Does Not Confer Title and Civil Suit Is Appropriate Remedy. The court ruled that revenue authorities cannot decide title disputes and writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not maintainable for such matters.
23 Jul 2019The petitioners, Mr. Ashok Bansidhar Agarwal and M/s. Rajeshwar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitut...
- 124
High Court
Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction of Tenant for Unauthorized Subletting and Misuse of Premises Under MHADA Act. Tenant failed to prove lawful sub-tenancy and used residential premises for commercial purposes, violating terms of allotment.
7 Apr 2016The petitioner, Dr. Ashok Trivikram Wagle, was a tenant of a residential premises owned by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHA...
- 130
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Tenant's Appeal Against Municipal Corporation's Demolition Notice for Unauthorized Shop Structure. Tenant Failed to Prove Authorization Under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, and Withdrawal of Earlier Notice Did Not Bar Fresh Action.
23 Sep 2013The appellant, Maneklal N. Shah alias Kothari, was the original plaintiff in a suit filed against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (respond...
- 76
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Demolition Notice for Unauthorized Construction Under Section 354A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. Tenant Failed to Prove Permission for Construction and Suit Was Barred by Lack of Statutory Notice Under Section 527 of BMC Act.
6 Sep 2013The appellant, Shivashankar Swami, filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court challenging a notice dated 5 July 1999 issued under Section 354A of the...
- 81
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitioner's Challenge to Rejection of Regularisation Applications for Stalls. Allotment of Pitches by Ward Officer Without Authority Does Not Create Legal Right.
14 Mar 2006The petitioner, Pravin s/o Govind Kalbhor, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 11th Februa...
- 63
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Property Dispute — Consent Terms Not Binding on Applicants Under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC. Court holds that applicants who were not parties to consent terms are entitled to restoration of possession or alternative accommodation.
8 Apr 2005The case involves an appeal filed by the plaintiffs (appellants) against an order of a learned single Judge in a Chamber Summons taken out by Responde...
- 107
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Municipal Corporation's Demolition Notice for Unauthorized Construction — Notice Under Section 351 of BMC Act, 1888 Set Aside for Non-Compliance with Natural Justice. The court held that the impugned letter rejecting the appellant's reply was not a final order and that the appellant was entitled to a hearing before any adverse action.
22 Feb 2005The appellant, Pravin Jagdish Bhargav, filed a suit challenging a letter dated 30th January 1995 from the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Zone-III, of ...
- 23
