Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: cantonments act 1924 section 195 felling lopping and trimming of trees Page 3 of about 2,486 results (0.372 seconds)

Lachman Prasad Vs. Emperor

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1935All905

..... offences under section 141(1) read with section 268, cantonments act, and offences under section 141(2), cantonments act, are not specified in schedule 4 of the act, and therefore no court can proceed with the trial of any of these offences except on the complaint of or upon information received from the cantonment authority concerned or a person authorised by such authority by a general or special order in that ..... are two applications for revision of an order of the learned sessions judge of the shahjahanpur district confirming orders of a learned magistrate convicting the applicant of an offence under section 141(1) read with section 268, cantonments act, and of an offence under section 141(2) of the same act. ..... this case, some six days after the service of the notice it was found that nothing had been done and that being the case, the applicant could have been fined under section 141(1) read with section 268, cantonments act, a sum not exceeding rs. ..... was convicted of an offence under section 141(1) read with section 268, cantonments act, and fined a sum of rs. 10. ..... other words, the legislature contemplated the service of a notice upon a person and eventually a cleaning up of the premises with or without an offence committed under section 141(1) read with section 268, cantonments act. ..... result therefore i am bound to hold that the terms of section 266, cantonments act, were not complied with and it was not proved that the complaint or report was made in the manner required by the act. .....

Cantonment Board and Another Vs. Church of North India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... that is how clause (viii) `governing any cantonment board constituted under the cantonment act, 1924 (2 of 1924)' has come to be included in the definition of "public premises" under section 2 (e) (2) (viii) of the public premises act. ..... later on, it belonged to the government of india and it is under the management of the nasirabad cantonment which is a cantonment governed under the cantonment act, 1924. ..... which are mentioned in that sub-section, and cantonment boards have come to be covered under sub-section (viii) by amendment with effect from 1.6.1994. ..... singla, learned counsel for the respondent however, lastly submitted that the respondent was owner of the premises and secondly, the public premises act did not apply to these premises also for the reason that the cantonment boards have come to be covered under the public premises act only by amendment act of 1993 which came into force on 7.1.1994. ..... the lease deed provided in clause 2 (iii) that the lessee shall vacate the premises before the expiry of the lease as and when required by the cantonment board provided seven days' notice to this effect is given in writing.3. ..... in a number of judgments, this court has held that a defect, with respect to the lack of inherent jurisdiction is basic and fundamental and validity of such an order can be challenged at any stage, even in execution or in collateral proceedings (for reference see a judgment of a bench of three judges of this court in balwant n. .....

Mrs. Ana Maria Pereira Vs. Union of India and Another

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1993CriLJ317

..... of india, reported in : (1981)2scc420 it has been observed that under article 22(5), as also under section 11 of the cofeposa act a representation should be considered by the detaining authority, who on a consideration thereof can revoke the detention order and if the representation is rejected by the detaining authority, it is open to the detenu to approach the state government for revocation of the order and failing that it is open to him to approach of central government to get the detention order revoked. ..... shri pereira further went to contend that independently of the confirmation of the order of detention under clause (f) of section 8 of the cofeposa act, there has to be a separate and distinct communication addressed by the detaining authority specifying the result of the consideration of the representation by the detaining authority ..... maria pereira is the mother of the detenu nazario sebastiao dias who has been detained under sub-section (1) of section 3 of the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 (for short, 'the cofeposa act') under the impugned order dated 5th march, 1992. ..... upon the statements in the affidavits of shri mahendra prasad and shri roop chand, shri pereira contended that the delay between 13th may 1992, the date of receipt of the representation made by the petitioner, and 29th june 1992, the date of confirmation of the order under clause (f) of section 8 of the cofeposa act has not been satisfactorily explained. .....

Vishwanath Goyal (Deceased by Lrs.) and ors. Vs. Cantonment Board, Agr ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1987All4

..... for this, vishwanath goyal applied to the cantonment board for sanction by giving notice required under section 179 of the cantonments act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as the act) on july 14, 1958. ..... (1) every board constituted under section 13 in a class i cantonment or class ii cantonment shall appoint a committee consisting of the elected members of the board, the health officer and the executive engineer for the administration of such areas in the cantonment as the governor general in council may, by notifiction in the gazette of india, declare to be bazar areas, and may delegate its powers and duties to such committee in the manner provided in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 44. ..... the absence of any such notification from the record is moreover of no consequence --the reason being that by section 11 of the amendment act 1954 all that was done was that the nomenclature of bazar area was replaced by civil area; there was, in other words, a mere substitution in name and as a result whatever had been notified prior to this as bazar area came to be described later as civil area. ..... a perusal of these notices/letters reveals that in each one of them the plaintiff made reference to his notice dated july 14, 1958, accompanied with the plan etcetera and significantly he maintained that the plan was with the board still, but there was neither sanction expressly recorded nor an objection relating thereto communicated. .....

Gajraj Singh Son of Sri Attar Singh and Meerut-rohata-barnava-binauli- ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2006(3)AWC2915

..... jag ran & a mar ujala on 4th july, 2004 as required under section 61 read with section 255 of the cantonments act 1924 (2 of 1924), inviting objections and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected thereby till the expiry of a period of thirty days from the date of publication of the said notice;and whereas, all the objections received from public on the said draft notification have been duly considered by the cantonment board;and whereas, the central government have duly authorized the ..... cantonment board, meerut to impose the toll tax above said as required under section .....

Punjab Lime and Lime-stone Co. Vs. Cantonment Board and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1967All15

..... chapter viii of the cantonments act (ii of 1924) contains the duties and discretionary functions of cantonment boards. ..... the relevant portion of section 116 of the cantonments act is reproduced below:'it shall be the duty of every board, so far as the funds at its disposal permit to make reasonable provision within the cantonment for: (a) lighting streets and other public places; (b) watering streets, and other public places; (c) cleansing streets, public places and drains, abating nuisances and removing noxious vegetation; (d) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (e) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (f) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (g) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (h) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (i) _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ __ _ _ (j) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (k) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (l) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (m) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (n) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (o) rendering assistance in extinguishing fires, and protecting life and property when fires occur:' 7. ..... would be perfectly valid notwithstanding the fact that municipal boards can levy the same tax with certain limitations i should like to add that there is no allegation to the effect that the procedure laid down in sections 60 to 63 of the cantonments act was not followed i do not find any force in the second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.13. .....

Jammu Cantonment Residents Assoc. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in : AIR1990J& K56

..... 1959:-- in exercise of the powers conferred by section 60 of the cantonments act, 1924 (2 of 1924) the cantonment board, jammu after having complied with the provisions of sections 61 and 62 of the said act, hereby impose a tax on buildings within the limits of jammu cantonment, payable by the owner, at the rate of six per cent per annum of the annualrental value of the buildings. ..... 2 has been challenged and is sought to be quashed being without jurisdiction and in contravention with the provisions of sections 60 to 63 and 91 of the cantonment act 'hereinafter referred to as the act' and the provisions of the constitution of india as made applicable to the state of jammu and kashmir. ..... the tax sought to be quashed was imposed by a tax notification issued by the jammu cantonment vide sro 61 dated 17-2-1959 which is reproduced hereunder to show that the provisions of sections 60, 61 and 62 of the act have been complied with:'sro 61, dated : 17th feb. ..... 2 without compliance of provisions of sections 60, 61 and 62 of the act and without notifying the proposed imposition of tax has arbitrarily issued one notice to the petitioners and all other persons residing in the cantonment area for payment of taxes of buildings for a period of more than two years. .....

Delhi Cantonment Board vs.smt Shamim Bano

Court : Delhi

..... it may be mentioned here that the complaints were presented through the chief executive officer of delhi cantonment board, in terms of proper authorization by the cantonment board, primarily on the basis of a report of unauthorized construction submitted by the junior engineer of the area, in the wake of which action is also shown to have been initiated under section 248 (1) of the cantonments act, 2006, calling upon the respective respondents to show cause as to why the work in the nature of ..... be that as it may, since such action would be over and above the criminal prosecution for the offence under section 247 of the cantonments act, 2006, the court in the present proceedings, is called upon to address the issues, which have been raised on the basis of evidence that was ..... complaints lodged in each of these cases, and the evidence adduced in support thereto, that on the basis of reports of the junior engineers concerned, who were the solitary witnesses in each cases on behalf of the complainant (the petitioner), show cause notices in the nature of proceedings to have the construction work stopped and the impugned construction demolished under section 248 of the cantonments act, 2006 was initiated. ..... it appears from conjoint reading of section 247 and 248 of the cantonments act, 2006 that whenever the work in the nature ..... was conceded that the allegations primarily constituted an offence under section 247 (a) of the cantonments act, 2006, the provision in entirety, however, reading .....

Dr. Rajesh Kapoor vs.delhi Cantonment Board and Anr.

Court : Delhi

..... petitioner has not disclosed the fact that in 2004 the petitioner had constructed three storey building comprising of ground floor, second floor and third floor over an area measuring 21 6 x (11 + 9 )/2 without approval of building plans and obtaining sanction of the competent authority as required u/s 178a/179 of cantonment act, 1924 on the site earmarked as green land in the sanctioned plan. ..... but in the case in hand, the petitioner is not concerned with a notice, order or requisition issued by the board, but as noted from section 249(1) of the act of 2006 itself that the authority concerned to seal unauthorized constructions is the chief executive officer, who is an authority other than the board and i have not been shown any provision that any order issued pursuant to the decision of the chief executive officer need to be communicated by the chief executive ..... (c) 7139/2014, decided on november 19, 2014 wherein an issue arose whether section 248(1) of the cantonment act, 2006 is unconstitutional and ultra vires the scheme of the constitution of india as section 248(1) does not contemplate any hearing being given before the notice to stop work. .....

Smt. Khuslata Tiwari Vs. Director, Defence Estates and Others

Court : Allahabad

..... in this regard reference may be made to section 179 of cantonment act, 1924 which starts with words whoever intents to erect .......... ..... constructions can be carried out on old grant site without prior permission of the competent authority and subject to the prescribed formalities as per the land polity/ cantonments act. ..... in such situation request/ prayer for composition/ compounding was maintainable and the cantonment authorities could decide as to whether constructions were in accordance with relevant regulations or bye-laws or not without prejudice to the right of the ..... however while granting sanction to construct either under cantonment act or any other law relating thereto like municipalities act or development and planning acts, the question whether the person seeking permission to build is authorised to do so over the particular piece of land cannot finally be ..... executive officer of the cantonment board issued notice to the father of the petitioner on 26.04.1991 copy of which is annexure-i to the writ petition and to the property manager of bungalow no.51, varanasi ..... of the petitioner filed reply, copy of which is annexure-ii to the writ petition stating that the constructions were quite old and he had not made constructions and that ldta was adopting different measures to evict him. ..... appellate court has noted the arguments of ldta to the effect that masih charan had been asked to vacate the premises and he had carried large construction without permission of hor (ldta). .....