Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: cantonments act 1924 section 195 felling lopping and trimming of trees Page 1 of about 2,486 results (0.234 seconds)

Dattaprasad Dindayal Kalwar Vs. the Cantonment Board Camp

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 1967CriLJ1235

..... 3 under section 195 of the cantonments act, 1924 to remove, five madi trees, one snap nut tree and one bori tree standing in the compound of his bungalow no. ..... require the owner, lessee or occupier of any such land, to lop or trim, in such manner as may be specified in the notice, all or any trees standing on such land or to remove any dead trees from such land.a plain reading of this section would indicate that the section confers two kinds of powers on & cantonment board ; (1) it has got the power under sub-section (1) to call upon the owner, lessee or occupier of any land to fell a tree within the specified time if the board thinks that the ..... felling of any tree of mature growth standing on private properties is necessary for any reason ; (2) it can either lop or trim any tree standing on the land of the government .....

The Cantonment Board by Its Executive Officer, Camp Belgaum Vs. Smt. J ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 1999(2)KarLJ569

..... 1 that the alleged unauthorised constructions in the suit property had been completed in 1984, especially when the plaintiff-respondent had failed to submit the completion report as required by section 74 of the cantonments act, 1924? 7. ..... the plaintiff violatedthe provisions of the cantonments act and the bye-laws thereunder applicable to the buildings in the cantonment area. ..... i am inclined to give a chance to the plaintiff to approach the authority and file an appeal within the provisions of the cantonments act. ..... the defendant started alleging that the plaintiff unauthorisedly constructed the building without valid sanction of the cantonment board and directed to demolish the unauthorised construction and to stop further construction under its notice dated 31-8-1984 and 20-3-1985. ..... , at any time, by notice in writing, direct the owner, lessee or occupier of any land in the cantonment to stop the erection or re-erection of a building in any case in which the board considers that such erection or re-erection is an offence under section 184, and may in any such case or in any other case in which the board considers that the erection or re erection of a building is an offence under section 184, within twelve months of the completion of such erection or re-erection in like manner direct .....

Jagat Singh S/O Late Chaudhary Badri Singh Vs. the Estate Officer, Del ...

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2002VAD(Delhi)713; 98(2002)DLT151; 2002(63)DRJ756

..... ;(2) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of,- (i) xxx xxx(ii) any corporation not being a company as defined in section 3 of the companies act, 1956 (1 of 1956), or a local authority established by or under a central act and owned or controlled by the central government,(iii) xxx xxx(iv) xxx xxx(v) xxx xxx(vi) xxx xxx(vii) xxx xxx(viii) any cantonment board constituted under the cantonments act, 1924 (2 of 1924); (3) in relation to the national capital territory of delhi,- (i) any premises belonging to the municipal corporation of delhi, or any ..... canvassing this view, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to section 108 of the cantonments act, 1924 to contend that all property acquired, provided or maintained by the cantonment board (constituted under section 10 of the cantonments act) vests in and belongs to the cantonment board. ..... the meaning of the words 'public premises' as defined in section 2(e) of the public premises (eviction of unauthorized occupants) act, 1971 read with the cantonments act, 1924 is the subject of decision in this case.facts 2. ..... with the amendment to the act, lands owned by the central government but belonging to the cantonment board (by virtue of section 108 of the cantonments act) fell within the definition of 'public premises' in section 2(e)(1) of the act and also section 2(e)(2)(viii) of the act.23. ..... chapter xi of the cantonments act concerns itself with the 'control over buildings, streets, boundaries, trees, etc. .....

Bahadur Singh Etc. Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Reported in : ILR1976Delhi375

..... the petitioner contends that a combined reading of sections 110 and 117 of the cantonment act, 1924 (hereinafter called 'the cantonment act') unmistakably contains the conception of planning and before any land is required for planned development the cantonment board and not any other authority shall have dower and authority to initiate proceedings in so far as they relate to the planned development within the delhi cantonment and that the delhi development act, 1957, (hereinafter called 'the development act') is not applicable to the cantonment area. ..... the central government had not declared the cantonment area as the development area for the purposes of the development act under section 12(1) of the development act (iii) that the provisions of the development act are not applicable to the cantonment area or that the provisions of the development act had not been extended to the cantonment area in that no notification had been issued under sec- lion 9 of the cantonment act making the development act applicable to the cantonment area, are not required to be ..... in that case a contention was raised that mysore legislature had no competence to make a law in respect of regulation of house accommodation (including the control of rents) in cantonment area in that the subject-matter fell under entry 3 in list i of the seventh schedule of the constitution of india. ..... goyal the front portion abutting on the ring road measuring 88 square yards along with two rooms fell to his share. .....

Smt. Shobha Kailash Bonekar Vs. Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonme ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2008AP23; AIR2008Bom23(FB)

..... the cantonments act, 2006 has recently come into force from 13-9-2006 and has repealed the earlier cantonments act, 1924. ..... however, the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937, were framed in exercise of the powers conferred under section 280 of the cantonment act. ..... sapkal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-teacher, submitted that the phrase 'any such boards occurring in section 2(21) of the act' should be read as covering 'cantonment board' and therefore, a school run by the cantonment board should be treated as a recognised school and therefore, it is a private school under section 2(20) of the act. ..... for the reasons stated above, we hold that the school tribunal constituted under section 8 or meps act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 of said act by the employees working in the schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. ..... learned judge referred the following issue for the determination of a larger bench:whether the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1977, could entertain the appeals under section 9 of meps act filed by the employees working in the schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board.when the writ petitions were placed before the full bench, it was of the view that a recent amendment .....

General Officer Commanding-in-chief and anr. Vs. Dr. Subhash Chandra Y ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1988SC876; JT1988(1)SC458; 1988LabIC1014; (1988)IILLJ345SC; 1988(1)SCALE414; (1988)2SCC351; [1988]3SCR62; 1988(3)SLJ91(SC); 1988(1)LC596(SC)

..... the appeal is directed against the judgment of the allahabad high court striking down rule 5-c of the cantonment funds servants rules, 1937, hereinafter referred to as 'the rules', as ultra vires the provisions of the cantonment act, 1924 and also quashing the impugned order of transfer dated october 27, 1986 passed by the goc-in-chief, central command.3. ..... our attention has been drawn to the provision of sub-section (2) of section 281 of the cantonment act, which provides that all rules made under the act shall be published in the official gazette and in such other manner, if any, as the central government may direct and, on such publication, shall have effect as if enacted in the act. ..... has struck down rule 5-c holding, inter alia, that the services of the employees of the cantonment board are neither centralised nor is there a common state-level service and that the impugned rule 5-c, having provided for the transfer of the employees of one board to another board by the goc-in-chief, central command, is beyond the rule making power of the central government as contained in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 280 of the cantonment act as it stood before it was amended. ..... rule 5-c was framed by the central government in excess of its rule making power as contained in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 280 of the cantonment act before its amendment by the substitution of clause (c); it is, therefore, void.15. .....

Smt. Haannurammabai Kalal (Deceased) by L.R. Vs. Cantonment Board

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2008(3)KarLJ528; 2008(1)AIRKarR178; 2008AIHC1220(Kar); 2008AIHC1220(Kar)

..... filed by the appellant for injunction restraining the respondent-cantonment board (the 'board' in short) and also to declare the notices issued under sections 185 and 256 of the cantonments act, 1924, as null and void, was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the appellant ought to have sought the remedy under the cantonments act itself and also for not complying with the requirement of issuing notice to the cantonment board and following the dismissal of the suit, the appeal was ..... up the stand that there was no sanction accorded to the appellant for construction of new house and secondly she had violated the bye-laws by putting up unauthorised construction and before issuing notice under section 256 of the act, the appellant was given an opportunity on 30-9-1987 but the appellant did not prefer any appeal as provided under the cantonments act, 1924, and therefore, the present suit was not maintainable in the civil court as there was a specific bar ..... regard to the above proposition of law laid down by the apex court, i am of the view that the facts and circumstances on hand left the appellant with no other remedy than to approach the civil court for the relief of injunction and as the limitation of 30 days prescribed in the notice issued under section 185(1) of the cantonments act, 1924 was over and in view of the explanation given by the appellant pursuant to her appearance before the board after 30-9-1987 was also .....

Cantonment Board, Mathura Vs. Krishna Bricks and Lime Factory

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)80; JT1996(8)SC180; 1996(6)SCALE510; (1996)6SCC72; [1996]Supp6SCR135; (1997)1UPLBEC53

..... as such, the realisation of the tax at the aforesaid rate was in contravention and in violation of section 60 of the cantonments act, 1924 read with section 128(1)(ii) of the u.p. ..... section 3 of the cantonments act provides that the central government may, by notification in the official gazatte, declare any place or places in which any part of the forces is quartered or which, being in the vicinity of any such place or places, is or are required for the service of such forces to be a cantonment for the purposes of the said act and may by a like notification, declare that any cantonment shall cease to be a cantonment. ..... a learned judge in connection with section 60 of the cantonments act said:section 60 of the cantonments act nowhere says that cantonment boards can levy taxes which can be levied by municipalities subject to the same limitations. ..... 2051, the himachal pradesh high court has also come to the conclusion that under section 60 of the cantonments act, while imposing a profession tax, article 276(2) of the constitution cannot be violated.13. ..... cantonment board, nasirabad said:considering section 60 of the act, we may point out that the legislature empowering the respondent to levy and collect taxes used the word 'impose only and evidently, therefore, the terms should be taken to have been used in a wider sense. .....

Mahesh Jain vs.delhi Cantonment Board and Anr

Court : Delhi

..... sealed; (iv) that simultaneously with the initiation of proceedings under section 5b of the pp act, proceedings under section 248 of the cantonments act, 2006, also for demolition of unauthorised construction were also initiated; (iv) orders dated 31st july, 2012, 8th august, 2012 and 21st august, 2012 were passed in proceedings under section 248 of the cantonments act; (v) that the petitioner has preferred appeals under section 340 of the cantonments act against the orders dated 31st july, 2012, 8th august, ..... 2012 and 21st august, 2012 in proceedings under section 248 of the cantonments act; (vi) the orders in the said appeals were reserved on 13th august, 2018; (vii ..... i am of the opinion that when the question, whether the construction is unauthorised or not and/or how much of the construction is unauthorised and/or how much of unauthorised construction if any is regularisable/compoundable is at large in two properly constituted statutory proceedings under section 5b of the pp act and section 248 read with section 340 of the of the cantonments act, opening up of a third front at this stage, by directing consideration of the representation aforesaid, will lead .....

Cantonment Board and ors. Vs. Jagat Paul Singh Cheema

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : 2007(3)JKJ60

..... before dealing with the issues raised by the learned counsel for the parties, reference to the provisions of sections 43, 51 and 52 of the cantonments act, 1924 may be necessary. ..... reference being invalid, the officer commanding-in-chief would also lack jurisdiction and authority to annul the decision of the board, for the power of the officer commanding-in-chief to annul the decision of the board presupposes a valid reference to him under section 51(1) of the cantonments act, 1924.16. ..... bhardwaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the learned single judge's interpretation of the provisions of the cantonments act, 1924 was correct in law and that no interference was warranted in the impugned judgment. ..... for all what has been said above, we uphold the view taken by the learned single judge that the reference was incompetent and consequential order of the officer commanding-in-chief invalid barring his view that the officer commanding-in-chief does not possess jurisdiction to annul the decision of the board under the cantonment act, 1924. .....