Important Judgments on Municipal Corporation(Part 4)

 

1) Whether court can apply the Motor Vehicles Act principles for determining compensation for death caused due to negligence of Municipal Corporation?

In this background, immediate formula which according to me is available in such unguided and uncleared situation is to apply the principle of Motor Accidents Claims as contemplated.

Bombay High Court

Shripat Shankar Panchal vs Municipal Corporation For Gr. ... on 2 August, 2007

Equivalent citations: 2007 (6) MhLj 478

Author: A V Mohta

https://www.lawweb.in/2021/10/whether-court-can-apply-motor-vehicles.html

2) Is it permissible for the municipal corporation to levy property tax on property situated in the village area if the development plan of the Municipal corporation includes that area?

Under such circumstances, Corporation would not get right to impose tax. Mere inclusion of suit land in development plan of Municipal Corporation, would be of no consequences

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.

Gramaudyogik Shikshan Mandal Vs. The Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad

First Appeal No. 1071 of 2013,Civil Application No. 14046 of 2013,Civil Application No. 5275 of 2013,Civil Application No. 12 of 2014

26th February, 2014

Citation:  2014(5) ALL MR 801

https://www.lawweb.in/2021/10/is-it-permissible-for-municipal.html

3) Whether structures made in bricks and cement can be treated as temporary structures?

Thus, the material used for carrying out the construction is not a decisive factor while considering the expression “development of a temporary nature”.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.293 OF 2011

Khimji Virji Karia Vs  Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 

CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & R.G.KETKAR, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON: 2nd MAY, 2011

https://www.lawweb.in/2021/10/whether-structures-made-in-bricks-and.html

4) Whether court should dismiss an election petition at the threshold if pleadings of the petition are defective?

 Having gone through the contents of the election petition, we are satisfied that the High Court has not been right in directing the petition to be dismissed at the threshold by forming an opinion that the averments made in the election petition were deficient in material facts. 

Supreme Court of India

Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar vs Sukh Darshan Singh & Ors on 27 October, 2004

Author: R Lahoti

Bench: Cji, C.K. Thakker

https://www.lawweb.in/2021/10/whether-court-should-dismiss-election.html

5) Whether rent control Act will prevail over Municipal Act?

Therefore, the

finding of the High Court that Rent Act would prevail over the

Act is clearly erroneous as both legislations operate in separate

distinct spheres having different objectives in mind.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1833 OF 2008

ABDUL KHUDDUS  Vs  H.M. CHANDIRAMANI (DEAD) THR LRS. & ORS.

Author: HEMANT GUPTA, J.

Dated: SEPTEMBER 14, 2021.

https://www.lawweb.in/2021/09/whether-rent-control-act-will-prevail.html

6) Whether the applicant can claim the benefit of deemed permission for construction if he has not made an application for construction in the prescribed form?

From bare perusal of the provisions contained

in section 44 and 45 of MRTP Act it is clear that

for any person, intending to carry out any

development on any land, it is mandatory to make an

application in writing to the Planning Authority

for permission in the "prescribed form" and unless

the application made is in "the prescribed form",

as contemplated by section 44 of the said Act, in

our opinion, one cannot take benefit of the deeming

provision contained in subsection (5) of section 45

of the said Act and carry out any development,

claiming that there was no communication/ reply

from the Planning Authority within sixty days. In

other words, one can take benefit/ advantage of

deeming provision only if the application for

permission for development was made in the

"prescribed form" and if there was no communication

from the Planning Authority either granting or

refusing permission to the applicant within 60 days

from the date of receipt of his application. When

the statute mandates that one has to apply for

building/ development permission in the prescribed

form, the mandate of the statute has to be duly

observed.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH ATAURANGABAD

APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.: 48 OF 2011

GTL Infrastructure Ltd. V/s The Dhule Municipal Corporation and others

CORAM: D. B. BHOSALE AND S. B. DESHMUKH,JJ.

DATED:9th JUNE, 2011.

Citation: 2011(6) BOM CR 152: 2011(6) MHLJ 215

https://www.lawweb.in/2021/09/whether-applicant-can-claim-benefit-of.html

7) What is difference between S 260 of BPMC Act and S 478 of BPMC Act?

Bombay High Court

Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune vs Nanasaheb Nagoji Bhosale on 11 March, 1994

Equivalent citations: AIR 1995 Bom 164

https://www.lawweb.in/2021/09/what-is-difference-between-s-260-of.html

8) Whether S 5 of limitation act is applicable to election petition filed under Maharashtra provincial Municipal Corporation Act?

In such circumstances, it is not proper to urge that section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act would not apply to the election petitions. 

Bombay High Court

(Before Dharmadhikari S.C., J.)

Yogesh Mangalsen Bahai Vs Rajesh Chimanrao Wable 

Writ Petition No. 8170 of 2007

Decided on January 10, 2008

Citation: 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 12 : (2008) 5 Bom CR 243

https://www.lawweb.in/2021/09/whether-s-5-of-limitation-act-is.html

9) Whether the civil court will have jurisdiction to try the suit against the demolition of the structure by Municipal Corporation if the plaintiff fails to reply to notice U/S 149 of the MRTP Act?

However, as the notice was issued under the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act in view of language of section 149, issuance of such a notice cannot be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings. The present case is squarely covered by the findings and observations in the above referred cases decided by different learned Single Judges of this Court. Therefore, it must be held that the suit filed by the plaintiff challenging the said notice is not tenable. 

 Bombay High Court

Before Bhatia J.H., J.

Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation & anr. Vs  Kailash Tikamdas Mulchandani 

Civil Revision Application No. 132 of 2004

Decided on March 18, 2008

Citation: 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 305 : (2008) 3 Bom CR 725 : (2008) 5 AIR Bom R 520

https://www.lawweb.in/2021/09/whether-civil-court-will-have.html

Print Page