MANDAL PANCHAYATH HUNSAGI versus NORTH EASTERN K.R.T.C.

MANDAL PANCHAYATH HUNSAGI versus NORTH EASTERN K.R.T.C.

Plaintiff (statutory corporation) had locus standi to maintain suit for injunction and demolition, since public easementary rights for ingress and egress to bus stand were affected by illegal constructions within the prohibited distance, and Section 92 CPC did not apply.

Parties
Appellant: Mandal Panchayath Hunsagi; Respondent: North Eastern K.R.T.C.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Permanent Injunction, Perpetual Injunction, Mandatory Injunction, Section 92 CPC, Easementary Rights
Civil Procedure Locus Standi Permanent Injunction Perpetual Injunction Mandatory Injunction Section 92 CPC Easementary Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandal Panchayath Hunsagi

Appellant

North Eastern K.R.T.C.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff (statutory corporation) had locus standi to maintain the suit for injunction and demolition against Panchayat.
  2. 2 Whether suit was required to be filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
  3. 3 Whether constructions within 30 meters from the centre of the road were permissible.

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff (statutory corporation) had locus standi to maintain suit for injunction and demolition, since public easementary rights for ingress and egress to bus stand were affected by illegal constructions within the prohibited distance, and Section 92 CPC did not apply.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Suit filed by statutory corporation (respondent) is maintainable; Construction raised by the appellant is illegal and should be demolished; No order as to costs.