Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Mr.Yogananda N vs State Of Karnataka on 17 January, 2022

M/S Nandi Housing Pvt Ltd vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 22 May, 2023

(d) It was not the case of Petitioner in the original pleadings that he was coerced to execute the Relinquishment & Rectification Deeds. Such a contention now belatedly taken up by way of amendment to the Petition is only an after-thought. There is no supportive material emerging from the record of long correspondence between Petitioner & the BDA to vouch the same. Petitioner has taken up such a new contention only after looking to the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Dr.ARUN KUMAR B.C., vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2022) 2 KLJ 553, as is reflected from the copy of a decision of another Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.48258/2018 between SRIVATSA DEVELOPERS vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, disposed off on 27.5.2022 which Petitioner himself has placed on record by a Memo filed on 21.4.2023 i.e., days after the matter was heard & reserved for judgment. Thus the contention lacks -9- WP No. 7587 of 2021 bonafide. That being the position, the argument of acquisition sans compensation does not avail to the Petitioner, especially when Petitioner on the basis of relinquishment has derived the benefit i.e., the approval to his layout decades ago.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K S Dixit - Full Document

Bangalore Development Authority vs Reddy Shelters Pvt Ltd on 29 April, 2026

on the judgments passed in W.P.No.9408/2020, W.P.No.48258/2018 and W.A.No.100266/2022 inasmuch as the aforesaid cases pertain to the demand of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short) and local bodies for handing over the area required for 'road widening' free of cost. The present case is for relinquishment of the proposed Master Plan Road area, for which the additional FAR was given. Therefore, the facts of those cases and the facts of the present case are entirely different. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the fact that in DR. ARUN KUMAR B.C. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS ([2022] 2 KLJ 553), the Zoning Regulations were not applicable to the facts of the said case, but in the present case, Zoning regulations are applicable as the area is more than 20,000 sq.mtrs. Further, the contention of the petitioner that the proposed road would lapse since the Master Plan Road area was not acquired by the BDA within five years from the date of publication of the Master Plan as per Section 69(2) of the KTCP Act, would not be correct as Section
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Snn Abode Llp vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2023

2. The issue regarding relinquishment of the area designated as Buffer Zone, free of cost, which is stipulated in condition No.2 in the commencement certificate dated 23.11.2015 at Annexure 'D' is no more res integra. The issue has been considered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar B.C. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.9408/2020 and connected matters dated 17.01.2022.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R Devdas - Full Document

Sri.St Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2023

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 04.03.2023 at Annexure 'A' is hereby quashed and set aside. The third respondent-Assistant Director is hereby directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner seeking sanction of plan in terms of Annexure 'H' and proceed in -6- NC: 2023:KHC:25666 WP No. 7844 of 2023 accordance with law without insisting for relinquishment of a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner free of cost, in terms of the judgment mentioned hereinabove in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar B.C. (supra). If the respondent-BBMP requires any portion of the property belonging to the petitioner for the purposes of road widening, the same can be acquired in a manner known to law or by grant of Transferable Development Rights in terms of Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Devdas - Full Document

Sri. Ramesh. R vs State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2023

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 15.03.2023 at Annexure 'A' is hereby quashed and set aside. The third respondent-Assistant Director is hereby directed to consider the application filed by the petitioners seeking sanction of plan in terms of Annexure 'G' and proceed in accordance with law without insisting for relinquishment of a portion of the property belonging to the petitioners free of cost, in terms of the judgment mentioned hereinabove in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar B.C. (supra). If the respondent-BBMP requires any portion of the property belonging to the petitioners for the purposes of road widening, the same can be acquired in a manner known to law or by grant of Transferable Development Rights in -7- NC: 2023:KHC:25664 WP No. 7935 of 2023 terms of Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Devdas - Full Document

Y V Prasad vs State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2023

4. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the respondent-BBMP and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that having issued a sanction plan and a building licence, the respondent-BBMP authorities cannot prevent the petitioner from putting up construction in terms of the sanction plan. Insofar as the land left for proposed road, in the property belonging to the petitioner, if the respondent-BBMP authorities are calling upon the petitioner to give up the same free of cost, then it will be clearly against the -5- NC: 2023:KHC:25665 WP No. 6601 of 2023 provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution of India. This issue was elaborately considered by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar B.C. and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.9408/2020 and connected matters dated 17.01.2022. Nevertheless, cause of action would arise for the petitioner insofar as the land earmarked for the proposed road, only if action is taken by the respondent-BBMP authorities to form a road without granting compensation or grant of Transferable Development Rights in terms of Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. Nevertheless, for the present, we are only concerned with the plan sanction obtained by the petitioner and the construction that can be put up by the petitioner accordingly.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R Devdas - Full Document

Sri. B M Jagadish vs State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2023

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 11.04.2023 at Annexure 'A' is hereby quashed and set aside. The third respondent-Assistant Director is hereby directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner seeking sanction of plan in terms of Annexure 'D' and proceed in accordance with law without insisting for relinquishment of a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner free of -6- NC: 2023:KHC:25663 WP No. 11844 of 2023 cost, in terms of the judgment mentioned hereinabove in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar B.C. (supra). If the respondent-BBMP requires any portion of the property belonging to the petitioner for the purposes of road widening, the same can be acquired in a manner known to law or by grant of Transferable Development Rights in terms of Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Devdas - Full Document

Sri. Naveen Kumar V vs State Of Karnataka on 24 July, 2023

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 29.05.2023 at Annexure 'A' is hereby quashed and set aside. The third respondent-Assistant Director is hereby directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner seeking sanction of plan in terms of Annexure 'E' and proceed in -6- NC: 2023:KHC:25662 WP No. 12925 of 2023 accordance with law without insisting for relinquishment of a portion of the property belonging to the petitioner free of cost, in terms of the judgment mentioned hereinabove in the case of Dr.Arun Kumar B.C. (supra). If the respondent-BBMP requires any portion of the property belonging to the petitioner for the purposes of road widening, the same can be acquired in a manner known to law or by grant of Transferable Development Rights in terms of Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.
Karnataka High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R Devdas - Full Document
1   2 3 Next