Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(4)SC264; 1992(2)SCALE2; 1993Supp(1)SCC61; [1992]3SCR465; 1992(2)LC513(SC)
1. Special leave granted.2. It is one more avoidable litigation between Ansals, a big building contractor and the Delhi Development Authority in which allegations and counter allegations for breach of terms of contract have been levelled against each other. We would have asked the appellant to stand in queue for hearing of the matter, but the real sufferers would be those persons who have invested their hard earned life time savings in forlorn hope of an allotment of a flat in a commercial building on plot No. 38 situated in Nehru Place near Kalkaji a prime place of importance in Delhi. It is the repetition Of the usual bureaucratic rigmarole from the side of the Delhi Development Authority and the usual payment of some instalments of the lease money and thereafter withholding the payment of the balance amount on one pretext or the other from the side of the builders.3. Facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case are that the. auction of leasehold right...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 47(1992)DLT421(SC); JT1992(4)SC46; 1992(1)SCALE1124; (1992)3SCC256; [1992]3SCR357; 1992(2)LC10(SC)
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. We reserved judgment in these matters on April 24, 1992. We heard learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length for several days. We have been taken through the provisions of Delhi Development Act 1957, Master Plan for Delhi published in the Gazette of India dated August 1, 1990, Delhi Development Authority (Zoning) Regulations, 1983, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957, Faridabad Complex Administration (Regulations and Development) Act, 1971, The Development Plan for the Faridabad-Ballabgarh Controlled Areas published in the Haryana Government Gazette dated December 17, 1991, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, The Environment (Protection Act) 1986, National Health Policy, 1985, Ancient Monuments Act, 1958, National Capital Region Planning Board Act 1985 and various other documents including reports of the Experts on Air pollution and environments. The parties have submitted detailed written arguments which we have taken into considera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 47(1992)DLT421a(SC)
Kuldip Singh and K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. We reserved judgment in these matters on April 24, 1992. We heard learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length for several days. We have been taken through the provisions of Delhi Development Act, 1957, Master Plan for Delhi published in the Gazette of India dated August 1, 1990, Delhi Development Authority (Zoning) Regulations, 1983, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, Faridabad Complex Administration (Regulations and Development) Act, 1971, The Development Plan for the Faridabad-Ballabgarh Controlled Areas published in the Haryana Government Gazette dated December 17, 1991, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, The Environment (Protection Act) 1986, National Health Policy, 1985, Ancient Monuments Act, 1958, National Capital Region Planning Board Act, 1985 and various other documents including reports of the Experts on Air pollution and environments. The parties have submitted detailed written arguments which we have tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC38; 1994CriLJ111; 1994Supp(1)SCC143
ORDER1. This writ petition brought under Article 32 of the Constitution concerns the incident which had taken place at Pilibhit on 12/13-7-91 in which 10 persons were reported to have been killed in what were described as 'encounters' between the Punjab Militants and the Local Police. The news item in connection therewith appeared in the Times of India on the basis where of this petition was filed. The issue was raised in the Parliament and teams of M.Ps. belonging to the Congress(I) and BJP also visited the places of occurrence to make an on the spot enquiry. Their reports are on record. We have also perused the report of the ACJM, Pilibhit in which it is pointed out that the identity of the persons killed in the encounters was not correctly stated. The investigation in regard to the incident was handed over to an officer of the Inspector General's level and we are told that the local police officers suspected to be concerned with the incidents were also transferred to enable the offi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC110; 1992CriLJ4027; 1992(2)Crimes644(SC); JT1992(4)SC228; 1992(1)SCALE1299; 1993Supp(2)SCC267; 1992(2)LC51(SC)
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant, Anant Bhujangrao Kulkarni, is assailing his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC under the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated March 20, 1981 for the murder of one Digamber Rao Kulkarni.2. The said murder of the deceased, Digamber Rao was committed on the night intervening October 13 and 14, 1975 at Bead in the State of Maharashtra. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased, who was about 70 years old, was staying alone at Beed while his son Dattatraya was residing at Palsingam situated at a distance of 25 miles from Beed. Two sons-in-law of the deceased, viz., Murlidhar (PW 4) and Shesharao Lalurikar were also residing at Beed. On October 13, 1975, the deceased as well as the appellant had gone to Hanuman temple at Beed for hearing Pothi. Waman Shete (PW 10), who was employed as a waterman with the deceased, had also gone to the temple for hearing Pothi. After Pothi was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2042; JT1992(4)SC363; 1992(1)SCALE1191; (1992)4SCC80; [1992]3SCR338; 1992(2)LC125(SC); (1993)1UPLBEC35
ORDER1. Validity of the no-confidence motion passed, on 28th March, 1990, under Section 87A of the U.P. Municipalities Act (in brief 'the Act') by the Board against the appellant, who was elected in November, 1988 by the electorate, directly under Section 43(2) of the Act, as President of Rae Bareilly City Municipal Board, having population of less than one lakh, was assailed as violative of the democratic concept of removal or recall of an elected representative by a smaller and different body than the one that elected him, in this appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court rendered in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Statutory arbitrariness, arising out of application of Sections 47 A and 87 A of the Act to the Presidents of the Municipalities either elected by the Board of electorate as irrational and invalid of Article 14 of the Constitution was, yet, another ground of attack. Reduction of period from two to one year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1620; 1992(1)SCALE1311; 1993Supp(1)SCC569; 1992(2)LC546(SC); (1993)1UPLBEC29
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This appeal by grant of special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 9.7.1971. 2. A large area of land was acquired by issuance of a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') published in the Gazette on 17th July, 1947. Out of such land, an area of 19 bighas, 4 biswas, 3 biswansis and 11 kachwansis belonged to the claimants - appellants. The area in terms of square yards was nearly 59462 sq. yards. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the Land on the basis of the use to which the land was put on the date of Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. It was held that part of the land was being used as agricultural land, and part of it was lying wholly unutilised as the same was unfit for any practical purposes. The value of the total land on the basis of its use as agricultural land came to Rs. 600/- only. The Additional District Judge as w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2521; 1992(2)Crimes931(SC); JT1992(3)SC579; 1992(1)SCALE1290; 1992Supp(3)SCC194
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal arises out of an incident which took place at about 7.30 p.m. to 7.45 p.m. on November 12, 1977 in Village Manjalpur, District Vadodara, in Gujarat wherein two persons, namely, Zaver Chhita Solanki and Raman Shiva Parmar sustained gun shot injuries caused by a gun fired by the appellant. The said injuries resulted in the death of both of them. Eight persons, including the appellant, were prosecuted before the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara on charges under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The Additional Sessions Judge, by judgment dated November 28, 1978, acquitted all the accused persons of the charges levelled against them. The State filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat against the said order. The said appeal as against the acquittal of the seven accused other than the appellant was dismissed by the High Court at the admission stage. The appeal as against the acquittal of the appellant was, ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1475; JT1992(3)SC508; 1992(1)SCALE1120; (1992)3SCC232; [1992]3SCR363; 1992(2)LC1(SC)
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenge has been made to the guidelines issued by the University of Lucknow for the Post-Graduate Medical Entrance Examination held on 12.1.1992 providing for a merit list for each college out of the institutional candidates of that college. There are seven medical colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow, Kanpur, Agra, Allahabad, Meerut, Jhansi and Gorakhpur. A combined entrance examination for admission in Post-Graduate Medical Courses for all the seven medical colleges has been held by the University of Lucknow. Though, a combined entrance examination was conducted for all the seven medical colleges, the seats are filled according to the admission rules on the basis of a merit list prepared for each college out of the institutional candidates of that college. The Clause (G)(ii) under challenge reads as under-Based on the marks obtained at the competitive entrance examination and the candidates ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT51(SC); JT1992(4)SC339; (1992)2MLJ59(SC); 1995(4)SCALE760; (1992)3SCC239; [1992]3SCR394
N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This appeal by grant of special leave in directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 24.6.1974. The claimants have filed this appeal praying for raising the compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. yard. The High Court has granted compensation of the acquired land on a belt wise basis with reference to the distance from the Hyderabad Bombay Road in the following manner. Survey Nos. 1057, 1058, 1061, 1062 and 1065 (land abutting Hyderabad-Bombay Road) making a total of 100 acres 4 guntas in the first belt, the compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre. As regards Survey No. 1056, 1059, 1060 1063 & 1064, total extent of 96 acres 7 guntas in the second belt, compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 4,000/ - per acre. Survey Nos. 1055, 1052, 1051, 1046, and 1045 - total extent of 100 acres 9 guntas in the third belt, compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per acre. Compensation for Survey N...
Tag this Judgment!