Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 Section 505 Exercise Of Powers By A Corporation To Be In Conformity With The Provisions Of The Karnataka Town And Country Planning Act 1961 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: karnataka municipal corporations act 1976 section 505 exercise of powers by a corporation to be in conformity with the provisions of the karnataka town and country planning act 1961 Page 1 of about 180,529 results (0.146 seconds)K.K. Govindaraju and Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of City of Bangalor ...
Court: Karnataka
Reported in: ILR1987KAR1570
Outline Development Plan and the Zoning Regulations promulgated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, in the Licence L.P Section 505 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 ('the Municipal Acs', for short), which prohibits Corporation authorities from granting permission vested in me under Section 505 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976, I hereby call upon you to show cause COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1961 - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a corporation or any officer or other authority required by necessary to refer to Sections 307 and 308 of the 1976 Act, which reads :'307. INSPECTION BY COMMISSIONER -- The Commissioner (4) of Section 385 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 443 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, which replaced 35, this Court pointed out to the effect of Section 505 of the Act on the licence granted in contravention of licence so granted. It is needless to say that the exercise of powers under all these provisions must be reasonable and other law for such development has been obtained.'505. EXERCISE OF POWERS BY A CORPORATION TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS the decision of this Court in D. Achaiah Setty v. Corporation of City of Bangalore, 1972(1) Mys. L.J. 186, there was and plans already sanctioned so as to bring them in conformity with ODP and the Zoning Regulations. The Corporation authorities have Visweswarapuram. Whatever that may be, in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 14 of the Planning Act there can be Supreme Court in K. Ramadas Shenoy v. The Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council : [1975]1SCR680 .4. Sri H.B. Datar, Learned Counsel and the Zoning Regulations promulgated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, in the Licence L.P No. 2611/80-81 dated Pr. 104/86 87 Office of.the Dy. Director ofLP.No 2611/80-81 Town Planning, 'PlanningCell' Corporation offices.Bangalore, Dt: 26th Sept., 1986 To Sri D.P. the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, is necessary unless evidence in support of having complied with
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSiddalingappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Reported in: ILR1993KAR868; 1992(4)KarLJ728
the Commissioner.22. in SHARAT CHANDRA LINGAPPA KOSHTI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, : ILR1991KAR862 a Division Bench of this Court, while considering certain posts under the Corporation to be made from Karnataka Municipal Administrative Services. Section 84 provides for appointment to the other that there are 3 posts of Deputy Commissioners in the Corporations, One post has to be filled up by deputation of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is also stated that in terms of Rule 26 to the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules framed of the Rules even after the validation cannot prevail over Sections 82 and 84 of the Act. It is unnecessary to 26 being a subordinate legislation made by the Government in exercise of its powers under Section 421 of the Act, the more Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners who shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions as may be specified in the Commissioner.By promotion from the cadre ofRevenue Officers of Bangalore City Corporation.19. Sri U.L. Narayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the promotion given to the petitioner since it was made in conformity with the provisions of Section 84 of the Act and for the said appointment is not required under the aforesaid provisions.16. The impugned order dated 27.6.1992, Annexure-B, read with the letter
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTP.R. Ramesh and ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its Chief Secretary ...
Court: Karnataka
Reported in: AIR2005Kant364; ILR2005KAR2526; 2005(6)KarLJ233
tenure for the Mayors and since the State Legislature of Karnataka has provided for a one year tenure we find no for the manner of election of the Chairperson of a Municipality. Once a Municipality has been constituted it shall continue for Whether Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 (for short 'the Act') which provides for one the relevant provisions of Sections 8 and 10 of the Act which are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference.'8. Term of Karnataka State Legislature had enacted the Act in the year 1976 and the provisions of Section 8 thereof were amended by by the Government of India and therefore the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Act which are contrary to Section 27 be excluded from being members of the house which the corporation is the tenure of the councilors is co-terminus with the was circulated by the Government of India and therefore the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Act which are contrary to
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMangalore Municipal Market Welfare Society Vs. Corporation of the City ...
Court: Karnataka
Reported in: ILR1993KAR86; 1993(1)KarLJ84
of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 as amended by Karnataka Act No. 14 of 1977 to evict occupants of public respondent-1 Corporation being the successor of the erstwhile Mangalore City Municipality, having control over the fish market, put up sheds with the 1974 Act. It is also significant that the Municipal Corporations Act is a later enactment than the 1974 Act. The purview of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 and that therefore persons in occupation of the markets entitled under Section 370 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 as amended by Karnataka Act No. 14 of 1977 to defined under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. Section 105 thereof defines 'lease' as follows:- 'A lease of immovable and licensee. Unless a different intention appears it cannot be exercised by the licensee's servants or agents.' This view has been Act. Under the Municipalities Act, 1964 as amended in 1976, powers have been conferred on the Corporation to evict the licensees in respect of public markets established and run by the Corporation and let out under licences. As I have already stated instead of being contrary to the Preamble, would be in conformity with it because while it may cut down individual liberty Municipal Corporations as the same were governed by the special provisions of Section 370 of the Corporations Act of 1976. Thus, recreation, sports activities etc., to the citizens of the Mangalore Town. It is dented that the stalls constructed in the Central apprehension in the mind of the petitioner-Society that respondent-1 is planning to shift the stall holders also by force illegally and
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTB. AshwIn Kumar and anr. Vs. the Mysore City Corporation by Its Commis ...
Court: Karnataka
Reported in: ILR2005KAR4223; 2005(6)KarLJ49
that matter.12. In the decision A.V. Laxman v. State of Karnataka : ILR1995KAR2331 , referring to the levy of water cess executive order.13. In the decision Doctors Forum Puttur v. Town Municipal Council : AIR1999Kant122 , referring to Section 256 of the . Further referring to Section 443(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act it is submitted that the relevant provision for collection Further referring to Section 443(2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act it is submitted that the relevant provision for collection of there is no express provision in the Town Planning Act, 1976 for imposition of fee and the State Government has not made for that purpose, if that be the position and Section 385(2) is the only section which authorises the fixation of That, we think, would be sufficient guidance to make the exercise of its power to fix the rates valied. The case to have a large amount of flexibility in its taxing powers. These considerations lead us to the view that Section 548 water and also for future utilisation of land of the Corporation to store material and for removal of debris that would 301 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act are not relevant provisions in so far as collection of licence fee is concerned the executive order.13. In the decision Doctors Forum Puttur v. Town Municipal Council : AIR1999Kant122 , referring to Section 256 of power. Since there is no express provision in the Town Planning Act, 1976 for imposition of fee and the State Government
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSavithri V. Rao Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Mangalore
Court: Karnataka
Reported in: ILR1986KAR2167; 1986(2)KarLJ132
the grounds expressly set out in Section 370 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act on the basis of which the Commissioner the Commissioner invoked his powers under Section 369 of the Municipal Corporations Act to regulate the markets and Section 370 of taken by Puttaswamy, J. that Section 370 of the Municipal Corporations Act is a special provision applicable only for public markets dated 10-6.-1982.Notice under Sections 369 & 370 of the KMC Act, 1976.Your attention is invited to Clause No. 14 (iv) and relied on Section 369 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, which authorised the Corporation to regulate the use of public respectfully agree with the view taken by Puttaswamy, J. that Section 370 of the Municipal Corporations Act is a special provision force. In issuing the above notice, the Commissioner invoked his powers under Section 369 of the Municipal Corporations Act to regulate taken by Puttaswamy, J. that Section 370 of the Municipal Corporations Act is a special provision applicable only for public markets learned Single Judge was of the view that while the provisions of the 1974 Act were general provisions, Section 370 of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTB. Krishnabhat Vs. Bangalore Development Authority
Court: Karnataka
Reported in: ILR1988KAR2865; 1988(2)KarLJ481
4, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 or any other law, but subject to comprised in both the villages were not included within the municipal limits of the Vishakapatnam Municipality. They were not assessed to the procedure prescribed under Sections 104 to 107 of the Corporations Act in so far as the petitioners are concerned.15. Petitioners 104, 105, 106 and 107 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporations Act') has not power under Section 29 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the B. D. A. Act') expired of objections that it need not follow the procedure under Sections 103 to 106 of the Corporations Act before levying or not have been exercised in the manner it had been exercised because the procedure to be followed mandatorily under the Karnataka B.D.A. also produced notification dated 26th June 1985 by which powers of the Corporation were to be exercised by the B.D.A. situated before it as included within the area of the Corporation then those taxes continued to be levied by the Corporation. until the reconstitution of the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of this Act, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in or a sanitary board or a notified area of a town board constituted or continued under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTParvathi Bai Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Reported in: ILR1986KAR3258
11, the provisions relating to construction of buildings of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, are not applicable to erection or construction being so, the power under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, cannot be exercised by the Corporation or its (Regulation) Act, 1964 and Section 304 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. In our opinion, the view taken by the Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 has since been repealed by 1976 Act. Mr. Castelino therefore submits that since the Karnataka Municipal Corporations proviso to Section 304 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 is attracted to construction of a building for the exhibition the building is intended for running touring cinema, to comply.6. Section 11 of the Act, makes it abundantly clear that application Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, cannot be exercised by the Corporation or its authorities in respect of construction 30-8-1985 also applies to touring cinemas. That being so, the power under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, cannot the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, cannot be exercised by the Corporation or its authorities in respect of construction or reconstruction of licensing authority has to grant the licence subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Section 7 order dated 20-51-983 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Frazer Town, Bangalore City Corporation, under Sub-section (1) of Section 321 of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTRajatha Enterprises Vs. Commissioner, Corporation of City of Bangalore
Court: Karnataka
Reported in: ILR1996KAR1772; 1996(6)KarLJ1
to 31%:1. Karnataka Compulsory PrimaryEducation Act. (Section 16) - 15%2. Karnataka Health Cess (Section 30) - 10%3. Karnataka Libraries Act (Section in PATEL GORDHANDAS HARGOVINDDAS's case, : [1964]2SCR608 after examining various Municipal Acts and also the law on the subject in England rent received. In the case of SRIKANT KASHINATH JITURI v. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BELGAUM, : AIR1995SC288 , it has short 'the Taxation Rules') read with Section 147 of the Act proposing to assess the Annual Rateable Value (in short 'ARV') contrary to the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 ('the Act', in short) and the measures laid down for necessary implication permits. In the present case, the amendment of Section 68 does indicate the intention that the judicial or quasi-judicial conferred by a statute is prima facie intended to be exercised by the authority on which the statute has conferred it made it unambiguously clear that the Commissioner can delegate all powers which he is required to perform under Schedule III, namely Corporation to revise any tax imposed by it and the Corporation shall so revise after observing the procedure prescribed for the of the commencement of the construction.' 17. From the above provisions, it is clear that Part-Ill of the Rent Act which of India, : [1971]1SCR249 ; Guntur Municipal Council v. Guntur Town Rate Payers' Association, : [1971]2SCR423 and Dewan Daulat Raj Kapoor shopping complex cum school building on the basis of a plan approved by the Government. Pursuant to the said offer, which determinable under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (in short the 'Rent Act'). (II) The ARV once determined
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTThe Agricultural Produce Market Committee and ors. Vs. the State of Ka ...
Court: Karnataka
Reported in: ILR2003KAR4225
a Mandal Panchayat or a Standing Committee thereof, under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the Mandal Panchayat or a Standing Committee thereof, under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the Karnataka Committee thereof, under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayath Samithis, Section 504 of the Act, the Chapter -X of the Act is also inapplicable in so far as the Market established under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayath Samithis, Mandal Panchayats produce which the State Government has by notification issued under Sections 4 and 5 declared as an agricultural produce the marketing Secretary of the Mandal Panchayath shall not be competent to exercise and discharge the powers and functions conferred or imposed on exercised and discharged by the market committee; and (ii) the powers and functions of the Commissioner of the Corporation, the Municipal on buildings or lands or on both situated within the Corporation area and various other types of taxes referred to in and other premises established under the APMC Act where specific provisions are made inapplicable. In other words, the provisions in the thereof lies within the limits of a city or a town municipality or a mandal. (2) On the making of the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT- << Prev.
- Next >>