REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MADAN IRON STORES Appellant

V/S

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SAROJNI MARKET SHOPKEEPERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
GANESH NAVAK V. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR [REFERRED]
S.M. MUHAMMAD LBRAHIM V. THE DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,PUDUKOTTAI [REFERRED]
RASHID AHMED VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD KAIRANA OPPOSITE PARTY; AND UNION OF INDIA AND STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. MOHAMMAD NOOH [REFERRED]
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE COCHIN VS. A S BAVA [REFERRED]
BABURAM PRAKASH CHANDRA MAHESHWARI VS. ANTARIM ZILA PARISHAD NOW ZILA PARISHAD MUZAFFAMAGAR [REFERRED]
TILOKCHAND AND MOTICHAND VS. H B MUNSHI [REFERRED]
WESTERN M P ELECTRIC POWER AND SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
RABINDRANATH BOSE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
SHEILA KAPUR VS. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED]
UMA SHANKAR RAI VS. DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT NORTHERN RAILWAY LUCKNOW [REFERRED]
CHANDRA KISHORE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
HAJI ABDUL QAYUM VS. KESHAV SARAN [REFERRED]
GADADHAR GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED]
M S GANAPATHI NADAR AND SONS FACTORY VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED]
REVENUE PATWARIS UNION PUNJAB VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
N. C. Upadhya and others VS. State of U. P. and others [REFERRED]
IN RE: ATMAKURI GOPALKRISHNARAO VS. STATE [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petitionunder Article 226 of the Constitution, 66 petitionershave joined together to challenge what is described inthe petition as illegal and arbitrary allotment of biggersize ware-housing plots by Delhi Development Authority(respondent No. 1) to certain individuals and firms whoare impleaded as respondents Nos. 5 to 82 in the petition

(2.) The impugned allotment of plots in the NarainaIndustrial Area developed by respondent No. 1 and iscovered by the Zonal Development Plan for Zone B-7(Naraina Village Area) under the Master Plan for Delhi.It is contended that the said allotment has been madein violation of the afore-mentioned Zonal and MasterPlans and is also an infraction of the fundamental rightsof the petitioners guaranteed under Article 14 of theConstitution.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 which, for the sake of brevity,will hereafter be described as the.' "Authority" or the"D.D.A.", is a statutory authority under the DelhiDevelopment Act 61 of 1957, empowered to dispose ofland acquired by the Central Government for the purpose of planned development of Delhi. RespondentNo. 2 is the Land Allotment Advisory Committeeconstituted for the purpose of advising the Lieut. Governor (respondent No. 4) who is also the ex-officio Chairman of respondent No. 1. The Chief Executive Councellor of the Metropolitan Council is the nominatedChairman of this Committee.

Click here to view full judgment.

MADAN IRON STORES Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address