Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC253; JT1996(4)SC7; 1995(5)SCALE172; (1996)8SCC95; [1995]Supp3SCR212; 1995(2)LC656(SC)
ORDERB.L. Hansaria, J.1. The appellants are some of the residents of Sarita Vihar. According to them, respondent No. 1, Delhi Development Authority (DDA), permitted a nursery school to be opened in Park No. 6 of Pocket 'A' of Sarita Vihar by respondent No. 2 in complete violation of the provisions of Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for short 'the Act')- When they approached with this grievance, the High Court of Delhi found no merit and dismissed the writ petition.2. The short and important point which is required to be determined is whether the school in question is in possession of the land in question in violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Act. According to Shri P.P. Rao, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellants, there is no escape from the conclusion that the school was allowed to be opened in the park in violation of what has been contained in Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. The stand of DDA on the other hand, as put forward by Shri Jaitley, is that the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC122
ORDERParipoornan, J.1. Leave granted. 2. A batch of four Writ Petitions: CWJC No. 8426/88, CWJC No. 6373/88, CWJC No. 3720/90 and CWJC No. 9000/89, was heard and disposed of by the High Court of Patna by a common Judgment dated 30-7-1993. The appellants who obtained leave in S. II. P. (C) No. '20490 of 1993, are the petitioners in CWJC No. 84263. The main contesting respondents in the above appeals are-the State of Bihar, the Patna Regional Development Authority, and the Buddha Griha Nirman Sahyog Samiti Ltd. CWJC No. 6373/88 was a writ petition filed by the Buddha Griha Nirman Sahyog Samiti Ltd., praying that appropriate directions may be given to the respondents therein (the State of Bihar and its officials, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna Regional Development Author ity and the District Land Acquisition Officer) to give effect to the directions given by the High Court in CWJC No. 3241/82 in the Judgment dated 23-5-84, and for other consequential and incidental reliefs, including ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC178; JT1995(6)SC364; 1995(5)SCALE128; (1995)6SCC99; [1995]Supp3SCR186; 1995(2)LC713(SC)
1. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether involuntary transfers such as a court sale, is a transaction valid under the provisions of Sub-sections 6 and 8 of Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (for short 'the Ceiling Act'), and to be reckoned in decreasing the surplus area?2. One Jagdish Chander was a tenure-holder in village Bijeser Bijoria, Distt. Shahjahanpur in the State of U.P. He had a large holding being over 100 acres of land. On 10-1-1974, he was served with a notice containing the necessary statement of his holding under the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act. A proposal was appended therewith as to which of his area was proposed to be declared 'surplus'. The tenure-holder thereafter filed certain objections. His objections mainly were that his entire holding was unirrigated and had wrongly been termed as 'irrigated' and for this twist, he gave various reasons. He also raised the plea that h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(44)BLJR7; JT1995(6)SC248; 1995(5)SCALE74; (1995)6SCC31; [1995]Supp3SCR197
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. Leave granted.2. A batch of four writ petitions -CWJC No. 8426/88, CWJC No. 6373/88, CWJC No. 3720/90 and CWJC No. 9000/89, was heard and disposed of by the High Court of Patna by a common judgment date'd 30.7.1993. The appellants who obtained leave in S.L.P. (C) No. 20490 of 1993, are the petitioners in CWJC No. 8426 of 1988. The interveners and respondents in CWJC No. 6373/88 and the petitioners in CWJC No. 3720/90, who have filed the civil appeals in pursuance to leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 21401-02 of 1993, are the appellants in the other appeals. No appeal is preferred by any of the parties in CWJC No. 9000/89 against the common judgment. The State of Bihar, its officials the Patna Municipal Corporation the Patna Regional Development Authority, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, the Buddha Griha Nirman Sahyog Samiti Ltd. and its officials are the respondents in these appeals.3. The main contesting respondents in the above appeals are - the St...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)ILLJ1127SC; (1995)6SCC476; [1995]Supp3SCR155; 1996(1)SLJ100(SC)
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. Delay condoned. Leave granted2. The Union of India, respondent in OA No. 204 of 1992 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur and the Railway Authorities, Northern Railway, have filed this appeal against the Order of the Tribunal dated February 22, 1993. The respondent herein as petitioner filed OA No.204 of 1992 praying for quashing the orders denying him employment on compassionate grounds and further prayed that appointment may be given to him. The Tribunal by the impugned Order quashed the orders assailed before it and directed the respondents to reconsider the application of the respondent/applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds and provide him with an appointment, if he is otherwise found suitable within three months. Hence, this appeal by the Union of India and the Railway Authorities, Northern Railway.3. We heard Dr. Anand Prakash, Senior Advocate who appeared for the appellants and Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Advocate for the respondent....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(5)SCALE194; 1995Supp(3)SCC540; [1995]Supp3SCR195
ORDER1. Having seen the details of the facts and circumstances in these appeals we do not think that there is any substance for interference.2. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published acquiring 25 acres and odd for public purpose, namely, for establishment of grain market. The Land Acquisition Collector in his award dated February 18, 1972 awarded compensation at varying rates between Rs.40,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per acre. On reference, the Additional District Judge, in his award and decree dated May 3, 1976, enhanced compensation varying between Rs. 90,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- per acre. On appeal, the High Court awarded on flat rate of Rs.70,220/- per acre. Being dissatisfied with it, these appeals have been filed.3. We have seen the judgment of the High Court. Practicially, for large extent of land enhancement made by the Additional District Judge was reduced from Rs.90,000/-, Rs.85,000/-, Rs.80,000/- and Rs.75,000/- per acre to Rs.70,220/- per acre. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC112; JT1995(7)SC179; 1995(5)SCALE87; (1995)5SCC612; [1995]Supp3SCR172
1. This appeal having arisen from the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court relates to two properties which belonged to one Syed Abdulla Inamdar. On his death, he was succeeded by six children; four of whom are sons and two daughters. The eldest son is Abubakar.2. On the death of Syed Abdulla, agricultural lands which were Inams in his hands, were assigned to Abubakar, the eldest son, by certain orders passed by the Ruler of Kolhapur as Inams of two kinds. It is the admitted case of the parties that these Inams were impartible and had to devolve upon the eldest son by the rule of primogeniture. The other property was a dwelling unit which was owned by Sayed Abdulla and remained in possession of Abubakar.3. On the abolition of the `Inams' under the provisions of the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alienations Abolition Act, 1955, Abubakar was regarded as a Watandar on re-grant of the properties. His brothers and sisters, on the one side, laid claims to those lands as co-he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC67; 1995CriLJ4184; I(1996)DMC131SC; 1995(5)SCALE94; (1995)6SCC219; [1995]Supp3SCR177
B.L. Hansaria, J.1. Dowry, dowry and dowry. This is the painful repetition which confronts, and at times haunts, many parents of a girl child in this holy land of ours where, in good old days the belief was : 'Yatra Naryastu Pujyante ramente tetra dewatan' (where woman is worshipped, there is abode of God). We have mentioned about dowry thrice, because this demand is made on three occasions: (i) before marriage; (ii) at the time of marriage; and (iii) after the marriage. Greed being limitless, the demands become insatiable in many cases, followed by torture on the girl, leading to either suicide in some cases or murder in some.2. The highly injurious and deleterious effect on the girl, her parents and the society at large required legislative interference. It started with enactment of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, containing some penal provisions also. But as the evil could not be taken care of by this soft statute, the Penal code was amended first by inserted Chapter XX - A (contai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(6)SC324; 1995(5)SCALE49; 1995Supp(3)SCC632; [1995]Supp3SCR161
ORDER1. On August 6, 1990, this Court made the following order:'Having regard to the circumstances that the body that is brought into being is an adhoc managing committee pending final decision by the Joint Charity Commissioner it appears to us that ends of justice would be met by directing the said adhoc managing committee, which includes the said Vasudeo Motiram Kalmegh and Suresh Moolchand Agarwal to furnish accounts of the rents or licence fee collected from the licencees (who were not-applicants 4 to 7 respondents before the Charity Commissioner) for the period from April, 1987 to 31st of July, 1990. If upon such furnishment of accounts and funds are found to be in the hands of the adhoc managing committee or with Vasudeo Motiram Kalmegh and Suresh Moolchand Agarwal or any of them, as the case may be, such balance shall also be deposited with the Charity Commissioner within two months from today. The adhoc managing committee shall, with effect from the 1st August, 1990. collect th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(5)SCALE355; (1995)6SCC45; [1995]Supp3SCR141
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The only contention raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that the Divisional Railway Manager, Railways, was not the appointing authority. Therefore, he was not competent to impose the punishment of removal from service. That found favour with the Tribunal. Accordingly, the order of removal from service was set aside by the Tribunal in its order dated November 15, 1989.3. The controversy is no longer res integra. In Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence and Ors. v. S. Daniel and Ors. 1980 (2) SCR 440, a bench of this Court interpreted the Rules in a common judgment. On a reading of Rule 2(a) and Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, it was held that it would be impossible for the President to deal with all the disciplinary matters of the Government employees. Therefore, delegation of appointment power was made to the General Manager and disciplinary power was delegated to the Divisional Manager. The General Manage...
Tag this Judgment!