Smt Chowdamma W/O Late Basappa and ors. Vs. the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/843863 |
| Subject | Property |
| Court | Karnataka High Court |
| Decided On | Apr-24-2009 |
| Case Number | Review Petition No. 431/2008 |
| Judge | P.D. Dinakaran, C.J. and ;V.G. Sabhahit, J. |
| Acts | Bangalore Development Authority Act - Sections 27; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 47, Rule 1 |
| Appellant | Smt Chowdamma W/O Late Basappa and ors. |
| Respondent | The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, ;The State of Karnataka Through Its Secretary, Ho |
| Appellant Advocate | R.V. Srinivasa Reddy and Associates (Absent) |
| Respondent Advocate | Basavaraj Kareddy, Govt. Adv. for R2 |
| Disposition | Petition dismissed |
Excerpt:
- income tax act,1961[c.a.no.43/1961] -- section 194-la: [d.v.shylendra kumar,j] payment of compensation in certain immovable property - deduction of tax amount @ 10% and remittance to income tax department - whether such a deduction should be done in respect of compensation payable on acquisition of agricultural land? held, no. the legislature has taken care to levy tax on the income, which is other than agricultural income, knowing its legislative limitations and by seeking to rope in income attributable to agricultural operations. this exercise does not in any way affect or control the provisions of section 194-la and more so when the very provision expressly seeks to retain agricultural land with or without urban potential to be as an agricultural land only and further treats it as..........is filed under order 47 rule 1 cpc., seeking for review of the order dated 16.10.2008 passed is writ appeal no. 1557/2004.2. it is averred in the review petition that the order passed by this court on 16.10.2008 is liable to be reviewed as the bda., has failed to implement the scheme by hand-in-glove with the fourth respondent-society and the appeal had come up for orders in view of the applications pending in the appeal and since the bench has expressed to hear the matter on merits. when the review petition was called out, the counsel appearing for the petitioners was absent and no representation was made on his behalf.3. we have perused the grounds urged in the review petition and it is clear from the order passed by this court on 16.10.2008 that the said order has been passed on.....
Judgment:V.G. Sabhahit, J.
1. This review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC., seeking for review of the order dated 16.10.2008 passed is Writ Appeal No. 1557/2004.
2. It is averred in the review petition that the order passed by this court on 16.10.2008 is liable to be reviewed as the BDA., has failed to implement the scheme by hand-in-glove with the fourth respondent-Society and the appeal had come up for orders in view of the applications pending in the appeal and since the Bench has expressed to hear the matter on merits. When the review petition was called out, the Counsel appearing for the petitioners was absent and no representation was made on his behalf.
3. We have perused the grounds urged in the review petition and it is clear from the order passed by this court on 16.10.2008 that the said order has been passed on merits by holding that writ petitions are filed during 2003 challenging the acquisition proceedings pertaining to the year 1971 and after expiry of the requisite period during which respondents were required to implement the scheme and in view of the tact that acquisition proceedings were challenged in W.P. Nos. 17572-577/1995 and the said writ petitions are disposed of and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench of this court in W.A. No. 2221/1997 and the said order was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the present writ petitions were filed only for declaration that the scheme has lapsed and the learned Single Judge has rightly held that scheme has not lapsed under Section 27 of the BDA Act Since there was no merit in the writ appeal, the writ appeal has been dismissed on merits. Order dated 16.10.2008 is a detail order confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge dates 28.8.2003 and the contentions urged in the review petition do not make out any ground for review of the Order dated 16.10.2008. Accordingly, we hold that there is no merit in this review petition and pass the following order.
The review petition is dismissed.