Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.93 seconds)

H Basavarajendra vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 24 January, 2018

5. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in K.K. Poonacha Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2011 (1) Karnataka Law Journal 177B indicated "It is not a law enacted for acquisition or requisitioning of property. The terms like amenity, civic amenity, Bangalore Metropolitan Area, betterment tax, building, building operations, development, engineering operations, means of access, street as defined in Section 2 of the 1976 Act are directly related to the issue of development. Section 14 lays down that the object of the Authority shall be to promote and secure development of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area and for that purpose it shall have the power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of movable and immovable property but the provision relating to acquisition of land contained in Chapter 4 in Section 35 - 36 are only incidental to the main object of enactment namely development of the city of Bangalore and the area adjacent thereto".
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 183 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Offshore Holdings P.Ltd vs Bangalore Devt,Authority & Ors on 18 January, 2011

It will be useful to notice that correctness of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bondu Ramaswamy (supra) was questioned in the case of K.K. Poonacha v. State of Karnataka [(2010) 9 SCC 671]. It was argued that the three Judge Bench judgment required reconsideration on the grounds that it had not noticed other relevant judgments of this Court as well as the BDA Act had not been reserved for and received the assent of the President as per the requirement of Article 31(3) of the Constitution and, thus, this law, being in conflict with the Central law, was void and stillborn.
Supreme Court of India Cites 113 - Cited by 58 - S Kumar - Full Document
1