Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: wild life protection act 1972 section 18 declaration of sanctuary Page 4 of about 7,149 results (1.430 seconds)

T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2006(1)ALD(Cri)801; [2007(1)JCR99(SC)]; JT2006(4)SC454; 2006(4)SCALE232; (2006)10SCC480

..... main habitations and their maintenances by providing sufficient number of vents for the roads existing at the time of notification of kolleru wild life sanctuary under section 18 of wild life (protection) act, 1972 without permitting new roads and culverts.(7) right to maintain existing water courses and drains necessary to avert submersion ..... fishermen cooperative society; sanjaya gandhi fishermen co-operative society, sringavarappaduof krishna district will be cancelled. the claimants are not entitled to any compensation under wild life (protection) act, 1972 as they were assigned the lands by the government on free of land value.(11) d-farm pattas to the extent of ac. ..... of agricultural lands surrounding kolleru lake.(8) other rights and conditions as specified under section 27 to 34 and other provisions of the wild life (protection) act, 1972.(9) electricity connection shall be given for domestic use only and not for aquaculture or any activity connected therewith.(10) the 'd .....

R. Senniappan Vs. the Wildlife Warden. Indira Gandhi Wild Life Sanctua ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1999(3)CTC494

..... penning the cattle, namely anamalai mountain range is a sanctuary called indira gandhi wild life sanctuary. the parliament has enacted the wild life (protection) act, 1972 (act 53 of 1972), hereinafter reffered to as the act, which provides for the protection of wild animals and birds and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental there to ..... constitution. that fundamental right is subject to a reasonable restriction and that can be imposed. the wild life (protection) act is an act which provides for the protection of wild animals and birds and in order to protect them, restrictions and prohibitions have been imposed, which are reasonable and can be imposed. as rightly ..... 's representations and passed an order dated 28.4.1999 wherein he held that penning of cattle inside the indira gandhi wild life sanctuary is not permitted as per the wild life (protection ) act, 1972. however, he permitted the grazing of the cattle without penning. the writ petition is against this order.2 .....

Kunapuraju Rangaraju Vs. Govt. of A.P. and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1998(2)ALD802; 1998(3)ALT215

..... g.o.ms. no.76 environment, forest, science and technology (forest iii) department, dated 25-9-1995 under section 18 of the wild life protection act (for short 'the act') and whether the petitioners could be prohibited from carrying on pisciculture in the lands owned or occupied by them till final notification under section 26a ..... pradesh with effect from 5-8-1973. the prime object of the enactment is for the protection of wild animals and birds and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental ..... the preliminary notification was already issued under section 18 of the act. therefore, by virtue of the interim orders the petitioners who are pattedars of the lands are being permitted to continue their fishing operations.5. the parliament enacted the wild life (protection) act, 1972, which came into force in the state of andhra .....

Bharthu and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2000)124PLR524

..... a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notification dated july 29, 1988 issued under section 18 of the wild life (protection) act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1972 act') and order of the collector, guhla, dated july 28, 1998 vide which he rejected the objections filed by the petitioners under ..... e., state of haryana, through its secretary to government, department of wild life preservation, issued notification dated july 29, 1988 under section 18 of the 1972 act declaring the area to be a sanctuary for the purpose of protecting, propagating and developing wild life and its environment. the total area acquired is 120 acres with boundaries ..... of the notification dated july 29, 1988 under section 18 of the 1972 act. what has been done by the said notification is to declare the reserved forest area as sanctuaries for the purpose of protecting, propagating and developing wild life and its environment. the petitioners have not challenged the notification by which the .....

Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC1428; 2006(1)ARBLR374(SC); JT2006(3)SC31; 2006(2)SCALE680; (2006)3SCC643

..... coming in submergence which is not permissible without complying with the mandatory provisions of the forest (conservation) act, 1980 and the wild life (protection) act, 1972.27. reliance has been placed on section 26a of the wild life (protection) act which stipulates that the boundaries of a sanctuary shall not be altered except on a recommendation of the ..... adversely affected the interest of the petitioner or the state of kerala. according to the state of tamil nadu, the provisions of kerala forest act, 1961 and the wild life protection act, 1972 have no applicability to the case in hand. it is also urged that raising of water level in any case would not ..... had been declared as a 'sanctuary' covering the grassy area, marshy areas, swamps of mullaperiyar dam which was expanded to 777 sq. kms. under the wild life protection act, 1972. taking into account its importance as a well known habitat of tigers which is a highly endangered species, the sanctuary has been declared as 'periyar .....

State of Kerala Vs. The Secretary,paramekkara Devaswam

Court : Kerala

..... .8.2014 in w.p (c).no.17848 of 2014 has correctly interpreted section 43 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972? wa.1650/14 & connected cases15iv. what is the procedure statutorily prescribed under the wild life (protection) act or the kerala wild life (protection) rules to transport elephants from outside the state or to transport elephants from the state of kerala to ..... purchase an elephant from any other state in india and to bring the animal to state of kerala in the light of section 43(2) of the wild life protection act, 1972. ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction wa.1650/14 & connected cases7directing the ..... wa.1650/14 & connected cases5"i am to inform that your application for availing an elephant is not permissible as per section 43(1) of the wild life (protection) act, 1972". the petitioner in the writ petition has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to give prior permission to the petitioner to procure and transport .....

State of Himachal Pradesh and ors. Vs. Smt. Halli Devi

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : AIR2000HP113

..... to the dependants of the person killed by the wild animals as defined under wild life (protection) act, 1972. providing of such reliefs would not tantamount to admission of liability.27. in order to succeed in claiming damages under the tortious ..... attacked by a bear and had sustained the injuries. they however, denied their liability for the damages. they also admitted that killing of wild animals is prohibited under wild life (protection) act, 1972. they denied that the black bear was let loose by them. various legal objections as to the maintainability of the suit, absence ..... 26. there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. there is no provision under the wild life (protection) act, 1972, for providing of reliefs to a victim of wild animal. under the scheme ex. db, the state government decided to grant gratuitous relief to the persons sustaining injuries or .....

Magarahole Budakattu Hakku Sthapana Samithi and Others Vs. State of Ka ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1997Kant288

..... respondent company by way of lessee or otherwise was legally permissible under the provisions of (i) the wild life (protection) act, and/or (ii) the forest conservation act.re: wildlife (protection) act, 197213. let me first refer untie relevant provisions of wild life (protection) act. this act has been enacted by the parliament for protection of wild animals, birds and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto. clause 21 of sec. 2 ..... of lease hold rights has been assailed by the petitioners on the ground that the same has been made in flagrantviolation of the statutory restrictions contained in the wild life protection act. 1972, and the forest (conservation) act. 1980. the propriety of the transaction has been questioned keeping in view the larger interest of the tribals residing in the forest and the apprehension that the .....

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. National Agrl. Corpn. Mkt. Fedn. Ltd.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (2000)162CTR(SC)248

order1. leave granted.2. the notice that was issued on the special leave petition stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage by an order remitting the tax reference case to the high court for being heard afresh.3. the question, basically is in regard to the retrospective operation of section 80(p)(2)(a)(iii) of the income tax act, as amended by the iind amendment act of 1999, with retrospective effect from 1-4-1968. the order under challenge, though subsequent to the date of the amendment, does not take note thereof. the respondents have now filed a writ petition in the high court (writ petition no. 1003 of 1999) which challenges the validity of the said amendment. it is, therefore, appropriate that the appeal be allowed, the order under appeal be set aside and this matter (i.t.r. no. 227 of 1978) be restored to the file of the high court to be heard and considered afresh, along with the writ petition.4. order on the appeal accordingly.5. no order as to costs.

Comunidado of Chicalim Vs. Income Tax Officer and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : (2000)162CTR(SC)252; [2001]247ITR271(SC)

..... section 148(2) for reopening the assessment. further, the writ petition averred that the respondents had already issued a notice to the appellant under section 148 of the income tax act, 1961, for the same assessment year and that the appellant had, in compliance therewith, filed a return, it was asserted that, therefore, the second notice under section 148 did not ..... appellant was summarily dismissed.by the writ petition the appellant challenged the validity of a notice issued to it by the first respondent under section 148 of the income tax act, 1961. the notice alleged that the first respondent had reason to believe that the appellant's income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1986-87 had escaped assessment and .....