Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC426
M.N. Venkatachaliah and; A.S. Anand, JJ.1. We have heard learned counsel on both sides2. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the structural changes brought about by the petitioners in respect of the building do not amount to 'construction' and that, at all events, no notice had been served on them before the impugned orders were made3. We rejected both the contentions. There is no justification to hold that service was not effected. As to the nature and extent of structural changes, the tribunal relied upon the report of Sri V.P. Gupta, Assistant Engineer-cum-Commissioner to reach the finding that the structural changes brought about, having regard to their nature and extent, did constitute 'constructions' unauthorisedly made. We, therefore, find no merit in the special leave petitions which are accordingly dismissed4. However, it is to be pointed out that the mere departure from the authorised plan or putting up a construction without sanction does not ipso facto and without...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(6)SC725; 1992(2)SCALE457; (1994)6SCC756
ORDER1. Such controversy as has arisen in these proceedings centers around the allegation that certain orders of the High Court of Allahabad and of this Court are willfully disobeyed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. By the order dated 25.10.1991 of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and by a subsequent order dated 15.11.1991 made by this Court, the State of Uttar Pradesh and its authorities were restrained from putting up any permanent structures on the 2.77 acres of acquired land adjacent to the disputed structure of 'Ram Janam Bhoomi Babri Masjid'. There were also certain directions against demolition of structures in the area of the said disputed structure, i.e., between the Ram Janam Bhoomi - Babri Masjid structure and the 'outer wall'.2. Then again, on 15th July, 1992 the High Court made a further order the effect of which was that the State of U.P. was restrained from putting up any construction, permanent or temporary, on the acquired land without Court's permission.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1992]Supp3SCR12
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedThe present application was moved by the Union of India seeking clarifications and directions to remove certain difficulties being faced in applying the principles as laid down in the main judgment by the Constitution bench. The application disposed of in accordance to the directions passed and clarifications made by the apex Court. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(3)SCC527
N.M. Kasliwal and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 11-5-1988.2. The appellant-society is running a Girls High School at Nagpur. The school, at the relevant time, was governed by the Maharashtra Employees of the Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977. In view of the retirement of Mrs Kenekar, as Headmistress of the High School on 30-9-1984 a vacancy arose for the post of Headmistress. The appellant-society appointed the respondent, Mrs Kishori Deshpande as Headmistress with effect from 1-10-1984. A provisional approval for the said appointment was given by the Education Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagpur.3. One Mrs Chetna Motghare, respondent 3 herein sent an application to the Director of Education, Pune on 14-4-1987 stating that she was a Scheduled Caste candidate and serving in the school since 1977 and as such under the prevailing system it was her turn to be appointed as Headmi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(9)SC594; 1995Supp(4)SCC414
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. Notification acquiring 8.83 hectares of land for the purpose of constructing the dam was published on January 30, 1971 under Section 19 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1963. The purpose of acquisition was to extract the granite lying in the area under acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded separately for granite, apart from the land where no granite is available. On a reference made to the Civil Court, a Commissioner came to be appointed, who on personal inspection noted that 7,12,500 Cubic Metres granite was available in 15.77 acres of land. He assessed the rate at Rs. 1,02,493-. The Reference Court, accepting the report relating to the quantum of granite available, extent of the land and the value thereof, determined the land value at a sum of Rs. 17,717.59, as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer himself, and awarded an additional compensation in a sum of Rs. 98,011.07 for the granite as well as value of the trees standing on the land. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(Suppl1)SC428; 1992(3)SCALE232; 1993Supp(1)SCC672
R.M. Sahai, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court. The appellant, a public and charitable trust, was allotted a Civil Amenity site in 1977 for purpose of construction of a temple and a Kalyan Mandap. When the Trust started some activities on the land in dispute a Writ Petition, in public interest, was filed by some of the residents of the locality claiming that the plot having been reserved for civic amenity the Bangalore Development Authority acted illegally and in violation of the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 in making allotment in favour of the appellant. The petition was dismissed by a learned single judge. But the Division Bench allowed it, set aside the resolution of allotment and directed the Bangalore Development Authority to refund the amount paid in respect of the allotment to the second respondent. The High Court held that allotment for purposes of Kalyan Mandapam may have been a public convenie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ1175SC; 1993Supp(3)SCC523
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Special leave granted,2. Heard Counsel on both sides. After the impugned order came to be passed, there is a development, in that, the State Government in the Ministry of Industries, Energy and Labour Department has issued a notification dated October 9, 1992, in exercise of power conferred by Section 13(1) of the Maharashtra Workmen's Minimum House Rent Allowance Act, 1983, to the effect that from January 1, 1991, the provisions of the said Act shall not apply to factories and establishments in relation to their workmen drawing wages as on that date or thereafter at the rates exceeding the limits mentioned in column (4) with reference to the Zones and Areas mentioned in columns (2) and (3), respectively, of the Schedule, subject to the condition that where the wages of the workmen exceed the limits of wages in the respective zones, the house rent allowance payable to such workmen shall be calculated as if their wages were as per the limit in column (4) of the Sc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(6)SC721; 1992(3)SCALE246; (1994)6SCC752
ORDER1. The matter has come-up for orders on I .A. No. 5 on what has been described as an ' explosive situation' in Ayodhya as a result of declarations by certain religious groups that beginning 6th December, 1992 there will be a resumption of 'Kar Seva' on the acquired site of 2.77 acres in avowed violation of the orders of the High Court where petitions challenging the constitutionality of the acquisition are pending. There are also certain orders of this Court which, incorporating the orders of the High Court in this behalf, also have the effect of interdicting any constructional activity on the acquired land pending disposal of the proceedings.What is poignant is that the arguments in the writ petitions before the High Court are concluded and the learned Judges have reserved their judgment. At this juncture some of the religious groups have threatened to take law into their own hands.2. Mr. O.P. Sharma, in support of I.A. No. 5, submitted that having regard to the fact that the sit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992(3)SCALE233; (1993)1SCC325; [1992]Supp3SCR246
V. Ramaswami, J. 1. The facts as found by the courts below are as follows. Jeet Singh the appellant in the Civil Appeal No. 3732 of 82 had two wives. The first wife is the appellant in the Civil Appeal No. 3733 of 82. She filed sometime in 1966 a criminal complaint against her husband under Sections 494 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the criminal proceedings they entered into a compromise before a Nyaya Panchayat constituted under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the same was recorded by the Adalat Nyaya Panchayat Angadpur Mukam, Meerut District and that consent order dated 14.11.1966 recorded by the Nyaya Panchayat reads as follows:Today dated 14th November, 1966, A.D. Nyaya Panchayat held meeting under the Chairmanship of Sri Bhanwar Singh Sarpanch. Sri Hem Raj Son of Ram Sharrna Brahman, resident of Village Barawad. Jeet Singh, S/o Hem Raj and Smt. Ramo Devi wife of Jeet Singh Brahman, resident of Village Barawad party one and Smt. Maya Wati daughter of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2521; JT1992(Suppl1)SC552; (1993)105PLR37; 1992(3)SCALE229; (1993)1SCC140; [1992]Supp3SCR221
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Civil Appeal No. 3096 of 1981 arises from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Orissa High Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 253 of 1980. Civil Appeal No. 3097 of 1981 arises from Miscellaneous Appeal No. 254 of 1980. The appeals pertain to two identical contracts entered into between the State of Orissa and the respondent, Sri B.N. Agarwala. All the relevant facts and contentions are identical in both the appeals. It would, therefore, be sufficient if we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 3096 of 1981.2. An agreement No. 8-F2/67-68 was entered into between the State of Orissa (appellant) and the respondent for construction of Kukuteswar Minor Irrigation Project. The value of the agreement was Rs. 3,84,690. The work was completed on 11.9.69. On 8.8.77, the respondent claimed certain amount on account of extra work done by him, which dispute was referred to Sri B.N. Das, Superintending Engineer, as the sole Arbitrator. He made a reasoned award on 25...
Tag this Judgment!