The interim order F passed by the High Court in favour v. UGRASEN (D) BY LRS. Mu/raj Vs. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj AIR 1967 SC & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 166, 226, 227
- Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 s. 65
- Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957
- Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
- U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act s. 41
Case journey
Linked proceedings
Civil Appeal No. 973 of 2007
This judgmentBuilt from judgments in the Courts & Cases corpus and the links detected in their text. Coverage is incomplete — earlier or later proceedings may be missing, so verify against the official record. How Case Journey works
Judgment
#3. Any order passed by any authority inspite of the knowledge of the interim order of the court is of no consequence as it remains a nullity. The interim order F passed by the High Court in favour of appellant-M in Writ Petition was in force and it restrained the Authorities to make allotment of the land in dispute in favour of anyone else. Indisputably, the State Government as well as the GOA remained fully alive of the factum of subsistence of the said interim order as is evident from the correspondence between them. The order passed by the State Government in contravention of the interim order, remains unenforceable and inexecutable. [Paras 28 and 38) [366-G-H; 369-0-F] G H MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS. v. UGRASEN (D) BY LRS. & ORS. 351 Mu/raj Vs. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj AIR 1967 SC . A
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Another 1 relationship is under human verification and not counted above.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.
Later judgments that treat this case
- Cited2023_14_283_292