Advanced Search Results

Gajraj and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Land Acquisition

Bondu Ramaswamy and Ors. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors. In the said case acquisition of land by Banglore Development Authority for planned development was under challenge. Land of 16 villages was notified to be acquired near adjoining Banglore … purpose and object of the 1976 Act. It is true that under Section 6(2)(a) of the 1976 Act the functions of the Authority includes acquisition … its statutory power for the object which is not contemplated by the 1976 Act. The GNOIDA has mechanically recommended invocation of urgency clause so that … industrial use of some villages was got changed into residential facilitating transfer to private parties indicate that the action of the GNOIDA is not to fulfil the object of the Act, rather it has been exercising its … Ghaziabad through NOIDA and by the said notification, 496 acres of land spread over hundreds of plot

Srinath Hegde, Bangalore and Others Vs. Bangalore Development Authorit ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Land Acquisition

rather difficult to fathom. BDA is a development authority within the meaning of the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 [for short, the Act] in respect of metropolitan area of Bangalore city and also planning authority within the … petition schedule premises; c. To quash the land acquisition proceedings pertaining to Sl.No.140, Sy.No.56/2, situated at Geddalahalli Village, Banglore North Taluk, in No.HUD 39 MNG 78 dated 2.8.1978 as per Annexure ‘G’ to the writ petition; OR … land initiated by the respondents, pursuant to notification dated 3.1.1977 issued under Section 17(1) of the BDA Act, 1976 by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-G, … case of GIRNAR TRADERS [3] vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [(2011) 3 SCC1]. 49. While Supreme Court in the case of GIRNAR TRADERS [3] [supra] was

The Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Kantha Chandra and o ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Property

Acts : Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 48, 49, 53, 95, 95(2), 95(3) and 95(5); Constitution of India - Articles 14, 226 and 227; Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 - Sections 148 and 148(1)

Reported in : AIR1989Kant1

the question involved in the case on hand.22.13. In W.P.No.455/71 divided on11-10-1973, (K. Narayana Setty v. Deputy commr. Banglore reported in (1974) 1 Kant LJ(SN)page 25 item No. 87, the question as who can prefer an appeal … enforcement notice had been quashed on the ground that for the alleged development no permission was required. It was held that the 'person aggrieved' was … in J. M. Desai v. Roshan Kumar, AIR 1976 SC 578. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme … 95 of the Act, it is an 'aggrieved person'. Therefore, it is entitled to maintain an appeal under Section 49 of the Act against the permission granted or deemed to have been granted under Sub- secs. (2) and … granted. There will be no error capable of correction by the Appellate Authority.ii) Granting or refusing of permission for conversion appears a matter between the

Sitaram Vs. Ram Charan and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : PropertyCivil

Acts : Evidence Act, 1872 Sections 35 and 79; Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 - Sections 117; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 13, Rule 1

Reported in : AIR1995MP134; 1995(0)MPLJ818

injunction was maintainable and was not liable to be dismissed. If any authority is needed, See, Coropration of Banglore City v. M. Papainah, AIR 1989 SC 1809 in which it has also been held that finding arrived … of Rameshwar v. Jot Ram AIR 1976 SC 49, the Supreme Court, following the earlier decision in … appellant/defendant came with the case that he was in possession prior to 1976 and in the year 1976, the suit land was given to him … Granting the presence of the such facts, a party instituting the proceeding is entitled to its enforcement. Later developments cannot defeat his right. See, also a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Chandra … Khasra issued by Patwari was admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act which was sufficient evidence to prove sub-tenancy and for that, production of

Kartar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Industrial Disputes Act - Sections 2 and 25(F); Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1984

Reported in : (1996)IIILLJ1099P& H; (1994)108PLR734

to retrenchment. He relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Banglore, (1984-I-LLJ-110); Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. Chandigrah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh, (1990 -II-LLJ-70) and … G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Petitioner Kartar Singh was appointed as Glerk in the service of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short 'the HUDA') vide order dated July 13, 1982 (Annexure R-2/1) issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA. … amendment by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act No, 49 of 1984 which has been made effective from … terminated his service vide letter dated September 26, 1984 (Annexure P-3). This action of the employer became the subject matter of an industrial dispute, which … for the employer to have complied with the two mandatory requirements of Section 25F (a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short