Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1977Delhi209; ILR1977Delhi659
T.P.S. Chamtla, J.1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution raises some frequently recurring questions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It concerns four plots of land in Tigri, a village. near Delhi. The petitioner, Major S. K. Gupta, purchased these and other lands from the Delhi Sainik Co-operative House Building Society Limited. Title was conveyed to him by a sale deed executed on 29th Apr. 1971. As the lands are neither contiguous nor part of the same field, they are described in the correspondence preceding the sale as 'scattered land'.2. In Jan. 1972, Delhi Administration decided to acquire a large area of land in village Tigri, including the four plots owned by the petitioner. Three notifications, all dated 28th Feb. 1972, were published in the Delhi Gazette of 16th Mar. 1972, Their distinctive numbers are (iii), (iv) and (v) which are suffixed to the number of the file from which they emanate. The numerical order accords with the statutory legal sequence.3. Notif...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi472; 1977RLR164
H.L. Anand, J.(1) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the purported rejection of the building plans submitted by the petitioner to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and an 'order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the orders of rejection and prays for a declaration that the plans had been duly sanctioned and in the alternative that the same be deemed to have been sanctioned.(2) The petitioner is the owner of plots No. 1 and 2 in Kaushalya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, a colony which belongs to the petitioner's family and their relatives. The petitioner submitted house building plans for plots No. 1 and 2, referred to above, to the Corporation for sanction. The plans were allegedly sanctioned subject to certain conditions being fulfillled. According to the petitioner the conditions had been satisfied and the plans were, thereforee, duly sanctioned pursuant to which the petitioner commenced const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1977RLR244
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This revision petition has been filed under sub-section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (as amended by Act No. 18 of 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the tenant Fateh Singh, and is directed against the order of Controller, dated 7th September, 1976, by which he has refused the application of the tenant for leave to contest the eviction petition. (2) The material facts of the case are that the respondent landlord instituted a petition under section 14A of the Act against two tenants including the petitioner before me, on the ground that the respondent landlord had been allotted Government accommodation which had been cancelled and which had been vacated by him and so he is entitled to obtain vacant possession of the tenanted premises from the two tenants. (3) Notice of the petition was issued for trial in a summary manner. Both the tenants filed applications for leave to contest the eviction petition. The applications were supported by affida...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1977RLR110
H.L. Anand, J. (1) Respondent 1 is a Govt. servant. His wife is owner of a house in which petitioners are tenants. Govt. order of eviction was passed against respondent 1. Both respondents sued petitioners u/s 14A(1). Petitioners sought permission to defend u/s 25(B)(5)' On refusal they approached High Court. Relying on Ram Chandra v. Gokal Chand 1977 R. L.R. 73, High Court allowed the petition. Para 5 onwards, judgment is :- (2) On the question as to the scope of the provision of Section 14A(1) particularly where the property was admittedly owned by the wife in her own right I arrived at following conclusion ; Section 14A(1) entitles a landlord to evict a tenant if he is required to vacate Government accommodation on the ground that he 'owns, in the Union territory of Delhi, a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child'. The corresponding Government policy on which the provision in turn is based similarly renders an allottee of Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 13(1977)DLT72
V.D. Misra, J. (1) This revision is directed against the judgment of Mr. G.R. Luthra, Additional Sessions Judge, upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act but reducing the sentence from nine months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 . (2) The petitioner runs a Dhaba. On 14-12-1973 Food Inspector Mohan Lal went to the petitioner's Dhaba and purchased 450 Grams of chillies powder for analysis. The Public Analyst found the sample to be adulterated because of the presence of artificial coal-tar dye and 10.0% foreign matter of starches. (3) The defense of the petitioner was that the chillies powder in question was not for preparation of food at the Dhaba but was meant for private consumption of the petitioner. He, however, admitted that Food Inspector had taken sample of the chillies powder. (4) Mr. D.R. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner, conten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1978Delhi120; 1977RLR158
M.S. Joshi, J .Messrs (1) , B.Chawla & Sons a firm owned by Raj Chawla, is manufacturing rear view mirrors. Their design of this mirror was registered at No. 139585 in class I under the Designs Act, 1911 on 28-2-1972. The present petition has been preferred by Messrs Brighto Auto Industries, a partnership firm, engaged in manufacture of various articles, including rear view mirrors, for the cancellation of the aforesaid design. It has been urged that Messrs B. Chawla & Sons' design was not a new design, that it had no originality about it, that such designs were common in the market and that the respondents made a false claim as to their being originators of the said design before the Controller of Patents and Designs to obtain the impugned registration. According to the petitioners they are hindered in their trade by the registration of the aforesaid design and being aggrieved they are interested to apply for its removal from the register. (2) The respondents have controverter the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1977LabIC1636; 1977RLR100
H.L. Anand, J.(1) The principal question that this petition raises is as to the interpretation of Rule 25 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, the Rules) and in particular whether the Rule confers on the various authorities the power of successive review. (2) The petitioner who, at the material time was a Senior Booking Clerk in the Northern Railway at Moradabad was charged with misconduct. After a departmental enquiry the punishing authority, however, exonerated the petitioner of the charge by an order made on March I, 1973 and the case was treated as closed. The exoneration was upheld by the next higher authority, the Divisional Superintendent, Moradabad on a motion for review of the decision of the punishing authority under Rule 25 of the Rules. That in course of time the petitioner was promoted as Senior Parcel Clerk. Subsequent to the promotion of the petitioner the petitioner got involved in certain controversies with the Railway Administration wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1977RLR240
B.C. Misra, J. (1) This revision petition has been filed under sub-section (8) of section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and is directed against the order of the 1st Additional Controller, dated 24th May, 1976 by which he has refused the tenant leave to contest the petition for eviction and ordered eviction. (2) The petition in this case has been filed by the respondent landlord for recovery of possession of the premises in dispute on the ground of bona fide personal necessity mentioned in clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. In a detailed judgment delivered by me in V. L. Kashyap v. R. P. Puri, Cr 369 of 1976, on 22nd September, 1977 RLR 397,1 have laid down the rule of law as to what defense are legally open to a tenant in an eviction petition for bona fide personal necessity under clause (e) of the relevant proviso (in contradistinction to the petition under section 14A of the Act). I have also i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 13(1977)DLT115
V.D. Misra, J. (1) This revision is directed against the judgment of Mr. K.B. Andley, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi upholding the conviction of the petitioner under section 7/16 of the prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 only. (2) The relevant facts for the purpose of this revision may now be noted. On 25-7-73, a sample of refined groundnut oil taken far analysis by Food Inspector R.D. Sharma from the petitioner The Public Analyst declared it adulterated due to positive presence of 5.0% of cotton seed oil. The defense of the petitioner was that the sample was taken from a tin of Postman Brand Oil and someone had left the tin at his shop. During the proceedings the petitioner requested the court to send the sample to the Director of Central Food Laboratory, Calcutta for analysis. The court accepted the petitioner's request. The Director of the Central Food Laboratory found that the test for cott...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1977RLR137
H.L. Anand, J.(1) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Revenue Assistant, Shahdara, Delhi under section 26 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 (for short, the Revenue Act) deleting the entry regarding bhoomidhari rights in respect of the land in dispute made in favor of the petitioner and certain others even while holding that the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 (for short the Reforms Act) were inapplicable to the land in question by virtue of the same being evacuee property. (2) Land in dispute initially belonged to certain Muslim owners and was declared as evacuee property on their migration to the territories now forming part of Pakistan. It was eventually vested in the Central Government under the provisions of Section 12 of the Displaced persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and was allotted to one Smt. Devki Devi, one of the respondents in the present petition, and it was directed that the poss...
Tag this Judgment!