Allotment of plot - not constructing unit with in two years - Notice to pay fine at 3% for the delay - challenged - High court directed to execute sale deed with out fine - DB confirmed -Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Corporation and its officers are very generous in extending time in favour of the allottees for implementing the projects on the allotted plots and not invoking its right for cancellation and resuming the plot for non-compliance with the terms and conditions of allotment letter and agreement and re-allot the same in public auction in favour of eligible persons. - order for resume of the plot.=2015 SC msklawreports

  Allotment of plot - not constructing unit with in two years - Notice to pay fine at 3% for the delay - challenged - High court directed to execute sale deed with out fine - DB confirmed -
 Apex court held that we are of the view  that  the  Corporation  is
not diligent  in disposing  of  the  industrial  plots  acquired  by  it  in
accordance with law  in favour of the eligible applicants  keeping  in  view
after acquiring the land of the owners for the purpose  of  the  development
of industrial estate and allot the same in favour  of  eligible  persons  to
start industries on the allotted plots to  generate  employment  to  provide
employment to the unemployed youth in  the  State.   
Having  regard  to  the
facts and circumstances of the case, the Corporation and  its  officers  are
very generous in extending time in favour of the allottees for  implementing
the  projects  on  the  allotted  plots  and  not  invoking  its  right  for
cancellation and resuming the plot for non-compliance  with  the  terms  and
conditions of allotment letter and agreement and     re-allot  the  same  in
public auction in favour of eligible persons. 
Therefore, it is  a  fit  case
for this Court to give direction to  the  CoD  of  the  Telangana  State  to
conduct a detailed investigation in the matter against all the officers  who
are involved in the cases of allotment of plots and extending the period  in
favour of the  allottees  for  implementation  of  the  projects  for  which
purpose the plots are allotted and not cancelling  the  allotments  made  by
the Corporation and resumed the plots and dispose of the same in  accordance
with law by taking steps. 
The CoD, Police must investigate the cases in  the
Corporation and  take  suitable  action  in  this  regard  against  officers
involved in such cases.
 With the aforesaid observation and direction to the  State  Government  and
CoD, Police, the appeal is allowed, the impugned  judgments  and  orders  of
both the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High  Court  are
set  aside. = 2015 SC msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more