Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: These W.P’s filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records from the respondents and declare that the acquisition of 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, and notification dated 2.8i.1978, issued under Section 19(1) by the 2nd respondent of the BDA Act, 1976 vide Annexure-G1 has lapsed/is abandoned, in so far as the petition schedule property is concerned.) 1. Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] and the manner of its functioning is 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 meaning of this phrase as it occurs in the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, has been on the other hand an au...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. The appellants-plaintiffs have preferred this Regular First Appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing their suit. Respondents 1 to 3 have also preferred a Cross Objection challenging the finding of the trial Court on issue Nos.12, 21, 23 and additional issue No.6. 2. The suit file under Section 92 of CPC is for settling a scheme for the proper and due administration and management of the properties of the United Basel Mission Church in India, South Kanara and Coorg, in respect of the plaint A, B, C, D and E Schedule properties and for other consequential reliefs. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. PLEADING 3. The case of the plaintiffs is as under:- The United Basel Mission Church in India of district of South Kanara and Coorg, for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘UBMC’, is fully evolved evangelical Protestant Christian Church. It is an autonomous administrative unit, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the road widening between Cauvery junction and Yeshwanthpur Circle is illegal and contrary to law and etc.,) 1. In this public interest litigation the petitioners are seeking a declaration that the road widening between Cauvery Junction and Yeshwanthpur Circle is illegal and contrary to law and for a restraint order to the second respondent-Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike from proceeding with the widening of the road between Cauvery junction and CNR Rao Circle without following the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act and without hearing the residents of the areas around the said road. They are also seeking a direction to the respondents to follow the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act as well as the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act. BRIEF FACTS 2. The facts in brief leading to this litigation ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the Order passed in Writ Petition Nos. 17475/2004 dated 31.03.2009,40215-40229/2010(SC/ST) dated 25.07.2011, 36858/10 (SC/ST) dated 3.1.11, 12160/2011 (SC/ST) dated 02.06.2011, 369/10(SC/ST) dated 03.12.2010, 370/2010 (SC/ST) dated 03.12.2010, 376/2010 (SC/ST) dated 03.12.2010, 375/2010 (SC/ST) dated 3.12.10, 372/2010 (SC/ST) dated 03.12.2010, 41128-29/2010 (SC/ST) dated 25.05.2010, 389/2010 (SC/ST) dated 03.02.2011, 19960/2010 (SC/ST) dated 11.01.2011._Vikramajit Sen, C.J.1. The common question which arises in all these appeals is whether the decisions declaring the sale transaction in favour of the Appellants violates the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PTCL Act’ for the sake of brevity).While we deal with the specific facts and contentions of each cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Vikramajit Sen, C.J.:1. The common question which arises in all these appeals is whether the decisions declaring the sale transaction in favour of the Appellants violates the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act 1 1978 (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the PTCL Act’ for the sake of brevity).While we deal with the specific facts and contentions of each case later, at the outset, we preface this judgment with the legal framework within which the aforesaid question arises.2. Succinctly stated, the lands in question had been allotted by the Government, to persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (earlier compendiously termed as the ‘depressed classes’) on Grants which contained covenants prohibiting the transfer or alienation of such land in perpetuity or for a term of years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to the constitutional validity of the PTCL Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 16.3.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in Original Application No.545/11 vide Annexure-A and etc.)1. These two writ petitions are preferred challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, declaring the empanelment and selection of third respondent as void, invalid, arbitrary and illegal as a result of non-application of mind and due to deliberate suppression of materials facts and consequently quashing both the empanelment of the third respondent as a candidate eligible for consideration and Annexure-A1-notification appointing him as DG and IGP.2. The petition in W.P.8788/12 is preferred by the State Government and W.P.9655/12 is preferred by the third respondent in the said writ petition challenging the said order. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Vikramajit Sen, C.J.1. The writ petitioners who are respondents before us, were Bank Officers who had retired between 01.07.1993 and 31.10.1994. The Five Year Bipartite Settlement had by then expired on 01.11.1992. After extensive parleys a Joint Note dated 23.06.1995 was signed on the ‘Conclusion of Discussions between Indian Banks Association and the Officers’ Organisation’. Clause 7 thereof dealt with Gratuity and stipulated thus-“As the consensus reached, gratuity computed in terms of the Officers’ Service Regulations to be now amended shall be recalculated and difference paid only to such eligible officer employees who cease to be in the Bank’s service on or after 01.11.1994. No arrears on account of gratuity shall be payable to officers who ceased to be in Bank’s service prior to 01.11.1994.” The writ petitioners have successfully challenged the treatment meted out to them as they have been placed beyond the purview of the Settlemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Election petition filed U/S. 81 of the representation of people Act, 1951. Praying to declare that election to K R Pura Assembly constituency as Null and Void and order fresh elections in the interest of justice and equity. As the petitioner is entitled for relief U/S. 100 [1][c] of the Representation of people Act, 1951. Since rejection of petitioners nomination paper at the threshold by the 4threspondent is illegal and improper and direct R1 to initiate suitable disciplinary action against R4 as per provisions of representation of people Act. 1951 so that it serves as a deterrent and discourage such officers from violating the statutory law and helps in upholding the constitutional rights of the citizens in general and petitioner in particular and etc.)1. This election petition under section 81 of the Representation of People Act. 1951 [for short ‘the Act’], is by a person who had aspired to be an independent candidate to contest the election for seeking the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Election petition filed U/S. 81 of the representation of people Act, 1951. Praying to declare that election to K R Pura Assembly constituency as Null and Void and order fresh elections in the interest of justice and equity. As the petitioner is entitled for relief U/S. 100 [1][c] of the Representation of people Act, 1951. Since rejection of petitioners nomination paper at the threshold by the 4th respondent is illegal and improper and direct R1 to initiate suitable disciplinary action against R4 as per provisions of representation of people Act. 1951 so that it serves as a deterrent and discourage such officers from violating the statutory law and helps in upholding the constitutional rights of the citizens in general and petitioner in particular and etc.)1. This election petition under section 81 of the Representation of People Act. 1951 [for short ‘the Act’], is by a person who had aspired to be an independent candidate to contest the election for seeking th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 and 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION DATED 26.2.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 28.2.2002 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO QUASH THE FINAL NOTIFICATION DATED 3.12.2002 PUBLISHED IN THE KARNATAKA GAZETTE DATED 3.12.2002 AT ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS LANDS ARE CONCERNED UNDER SECTION 17 AND 19 OF THE KUDA ACT RESPECTIVELY.) The petitioning land-owners' grievance in W.P.Nos.394/2008, 9966/2008, 1914/2007, 2447/2008, 2733/2008, 1915/2007, 17000/2008 and 17052-17054/2008, 37548-37549/2009, 25570-25572/2009, 5490-5491/2009, 2348-2458/2011, 11927-11947/2011, 14351-14352/2011, 39034/2010 and 39035/2010, 34369-34383/2010, 41507-41519/2010 and 41676-41695/2010 and 41520-41526/2010 is over the issuance of the preliminary notification, dated 26.2.2002 and the final notification, dated 3.12.2002 issued under Sections 17(1) and 19(1) respectively of the Karnataka Urban Development Autho...
Tag this Judgment!