Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing Poornaprajna House Building ... vs Bailamma @ Dodda Bailamma And Others on 12 February, 1998

The Jayanagar Co-Operative Housing ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Others on 3 July, 2001

It is further contended, relying on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Poornapraina House Building Co-operative Society, Bangalore v Bailamma alias Dodda Bailamma, that respondents 6 to 9 cannot be regarded as owners of land despite the fact that a sale deed was executed in their favour through Court after the notification under Section 4(1) and in any case, when the original owners are not objecting for acquisition, it is not open to respondents 6 to 9 to move the Government for withdrawal.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 17 - P V Reddi - Full Document

Sri R Narayanaswamy Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka Revenue ... on 16 September, 2009

18. Learned §.vC;':;yjg§1'I1rrtent M.Keshava Reddy, has asser'tcdpV.AV"tha£tfiposeesslion taken by the State on 19.5.1990 "and Despite Issuing notices to the Society calling take possession of the land. the Society has fa1led'~.tov___come forward to take possession. He has pointed the records that, on 18.8.2005 the Society Wrote_stating__pe'ss.ess1on will be taken only if the entire extent of 0 if _ land""Was._V.deii:v:"ered and even though the Spl.L.A.O directed the :F<evenueV"inspector on 30.01.2006 to hand over the land to the , «Society and made arrangement for the same, the Society refused _t0.Itake possession and therefore the notice was affixed on the ._ W office of the Society. He has further pointed out that even during the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the Sp1.L.A.O. wrote to the Society on 16.6.2006 to talieijpossession of 13 acres 25 guntas of land, but the Society refnsed 4' and therefore the said letter was also..affi_xed_--on' 'thae; office:Vof"i't_he' . Society. He has also contended that'-all ipetitioners subsequent purchasers they cannot maintain spetitiona. ' He has placed reliance on «. case of Poornaprajna House pCo--operaéiyejSogciety Vs. Bailamma @ Dodda Baiiamma 8: Others' 1993 1441) in this regard. It is so Government is concerned, it over possession and affixing Society, calling upon the Society totalie the land.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P B Sanganagouda - Full Document

Sri.U.G. Anantharamachar vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 20 June, 2012

OPERATIVE SOCIETY VS. BAILAMMA @ DODDA BAILAMMA & OTHERS - ILR 1998 KAR 1441, a Full Bench of this Court while considering rights of the purchasers of the land subsequent to the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) has held that a person, who purchases the land subsequent to the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act cannot be said to be the owner. Such a purchaser has no right to challenge the acquisition itself, although he is entitled to claim compensation by virtue of the sale deed made in his favour i.e. of right, title and interest of his predecessor.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S A Nazeer - Full Document

The Bangalore Development Authority vs Sri M S Narayana Murthy on 3 September, 2013

In respect of jurisdiction, the learned counsel refers the judgment of this Court in Commissioner, 4 Bangalore Development Authority vs., Brijesh Reddy, Civil Appeal No.1501/2013 arising in SLP (Civil) No.1051/2013 and also referred another judgment reported in (Poornaprajna House Building vs., Bailamma @ Dodda Bailamma reported in ILR 1998 KAR 1441 wherein it has been held that validation of the Act cannot be challenged before the Civil Court which is barred from being adjudicated. After the acquisition, any transfer of property, the purchaser do not gets any title.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - L N Swamy - Full Document

Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited vs ) Vikas Telecom Ltd on 6 February, 2016

In ILR 1998 KAR 1441 in Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society vs. Bailamma @ Dodda Bailamma & others, it was held in paragraph-28 on page-1458, "Writ appeals 2090-94/93 arising out of writ petition Nos.480 to 484/93 have been filed by the purchasers of the lands after the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Now it is a well settled proposition of law that a person who purchases the land subsequent to the issuance of the notification u/s.4(1) of the Act, cannot be said to be the owner. Such a purchaser has no right to challenge the acquisition itself, although he is entitled to claim compensation by virtue of sale made in his favour i.e. of right, title and interest of his predecessor.
Bangalore District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Dist.Collector, ... vs Malladi Laxminarayana, Vijayawada ... on 3 October, 2024

26. Sri P. Raja Gopal Rao, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 relies upon a Full Bench Judgment of the Hon‟ble 26 RRR,J & HN,J W.A.No.1161 of 2010 & batch High Court of Karnataka in Poornaprajna House Building Co- operative Society vs. Bailamma 5and more specifically paragraph No.29 of the said Judgment. The relevant provision is extracted below:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document

Vallabhaneni Madhava Rao, Hyderabad, 4 ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep.By ... on 3 October, 2024

26. Sri P. Raja Gopal Rao, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 relies upon a Full Bench Judgment of the Hon‟ble 26 RRR,J & HN,J W.A.No.1161 of 2010 & batch High Court of Karnataka in Poornaprajna House Building Co- operative Society vs. Bailamma 5and more specifically paragraph No.29 of the said Judgment. The relevant provision is extracted below:
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - R R Rao - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next