Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The petition is opposed "

objections dt. 16.7.2008 of'T;§agonden;s V 1x '3fin:et contending that the p;fope1tyA,V_.sV1 1A'i3_je(:t_V pf petition is situated in an } 'pocket and the Corporation assessed the of the area, for fixm' g the e, fat" of Rs.600/-- for the sq.n1trs; Rs;.4{){}/ -» for the sites -550 sq. mtrs and R3200/-» for the sites. flpte. sq. mtra, as approved by the '~ _ . :'.I}*'j'$=1. "'e)£eVreise of power of the Corporation e§_um;2e ;;'a..%;:1..: 'standing Committee, in their absence. At 231' the statement of objections, it is admitted ~g_ earlier Writ petitions befoxe this Court, the A f_" éfiefporafion took a stand that it would collect the changes framing rules as contemplated by Section 466 of the eat and that the matter is pending before the Government for suitable amendments to the Act and the framing of rules since the year 2001. It is stated that in View of alarger UK extents of immovable properties hitherto : &;-:';','?V;"€'i'1v-";{1"59'r..' having become part of the BBMP pursuant V' in the year 2007 and the reconiéifiiititien Vpf -; Mahanagara Paiike into BBMP, 'neeeesitafeii the' of improvement charges. In"a§idifiofi; it Via. that Section 505 at the KM; A¢:;,""i£;§¢s£s_._me &'s'13r»1P: with the jurisdiction to dischaege land use or development or vvelevelepiaaent plan with the According to the belonging to the petitioner, not as contemplated by the Planning Act, the BBMP is ' _ 3-ugfiiieiéi demanding the payment of fievelofimefli as contemplated under Section 505 of the__VK1\v4C Lastly it is eontended that as the State Govefnxfient and the EDA, not being arrayed as parties, the is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary' 'S.