Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 64 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing J.M. Narayana And Ors. vs Corporation Of The City Of Bangalore, By ... on 17 December, 2003

Smt. Sunkamma W/O Late vs Sri. C. Madhavan Pillai S/O on 17 December, 2016

18. On going through the above reading of the plaint in O.S. No. 767 of 1991 it goes to very clear that in the year 1991 itself the suit schedule property lost its agricultural characteristic. It further discloses that the plaintiff stopped the payment of land revenue in respect of the suit schedule property to the Government. Merely because conversion order is not passed on that sole ground it cannot be considered as still the suit schedule property is agricultural land. A private layout has been formed in the year 1975 itself and number of sites sold in favour of third parties. There is material to show that number of residential houses have been constructed in the house sites. The BBMP has started to collect taxes from the house owners. At this stage, it is very useful to refer the judgment of the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in J.M. NARAYANA AND OTHERS VS. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2005 KAR 60. Para 5 and 6 are extracted as under.
Bangalore District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Chajed vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2022

11. It is settled in law that judgments have not to be read as Euclid's theorems and their ration descideni has to be determined with reference to the factual matrix in which the case is decided. The reliance placed by the respondent No.3 on the decision of division bench of this court in J.M.NARAYANA AND OTHERS VS. CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE supra is concerned, it is pertinent to note that the division bench in the aforesaid case was dealing with the issue of non payment of court fee on the memo of appeal. In the aforesaid context, the division bench of this court while dealing with the issue of valuation in paragraph 5 held that if certain lands are included in the Corporation limits are registered or used for cultivation purposes would not imply that the land continues to pay land revenue under the Land Revenue Act. It was further held that 14 Land Revenue Act would cease to be applicable no sooner the land is brought within the limits of Corporation. The aforesaid finding recorded by the division bench has to be understood in the context in which it has been made namely for the purpose of valuation of the land in context of payment of court fee. It is noteworthy that the aforesaid decision does not deal with the powers of Tahsildar under Section 140(2) of the Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the aforesaid decision is not an authority for the proposition that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the land in question if it is included in Municipal Limits. The aforesaid decision is therefore, of no assistance to respondent No.3 in the facts of the case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sindhulakshmi Kurup vs Sri Manjunatha on 8 May, 2020

7. The defendant nos. 21, 22, 23, 25, 30 and 31 had also filed an application numbered as I.A. No. 9 seeking for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 to 11 CPC. It was contended that the plaintiffs were seeking for a declaration that the sale deed dated 19.12.1946 19 and the subsequent transactions are not binding on the plaintiffs share. It is contended that as the sale deed at the first instance was executed by the ancestors of the plaintiffs family in 1946 the said relief relating to the sale deed was barred by the law of limitation, it was further contended that the land in survey No.55 was converted for non-agricultural purpose and the Bangalore Development Authority had approved the layout but however court fee was paid by treating the property as agricultural land which was contrary to the legal position as laid out in the case of J. M. Narayana and others v. Corporation of the City of Bangalore, By its Commissioner Office, Bangalore and Others reported in ILR 2005 KAR 60, it was also contended that all co-sharers including those with whom two thirds share was vested were not made parties though they were necessary parties in a suit for partition, that as proceedings were pending regarding resumption of land under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled 20 Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ("the P.T.C.L. Act", for short) suit could have been filed only after land was restored under the provisions of the aforesaid Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - S S Yadav - Full Document

V. Srinivas vs ) Smt.Shakuntalamma on 4 October, 2021

In support of his arguments the defendant's counsel has also sought to place reliance on a couple of decisions reported in J.M Narayana & others v/s Corporation of the City of Bangalorem by its Commissioner Office, Bangalure and others in ILR 2005 Kar 60 and in Smt. Vijayalakshmi v/s Smt. 55 O.S.No.3568/1996 Ugama Bai & another in 2015(4)KCCR 3947. In both these decisions, it has been well settled that where the disputed property is proved to have fallen within the Corporation limits, the property will have to be valued as per guideline value prescribed by State Govt. With due regards to the proposition of law laid down in these decisions, before considering the application or otherwise of those principles to the present case, it is to be seen whether the facts on hand would warrant the application of those principles.
Bangalore District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The C.B.C.I Society For vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 March, 2022

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of J.M.Narayana and Others Vs. Corporation City of Bangalore and Others, ILR 2005 Kar 60 and Anna Rao Vs. Gundareddy, LAWS (KAR) 1996-7-73, in order to buttress his contentions that when once the jurisdiction of the land is taken over by the Municipal Corporation under the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act would cease to apply.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R Devdas - Full Document

Smt.Jalajakshi vs Sri.P.Narayana Rao on 11 March, 2022

5. Per contra, Sri Sudhakar Pai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, submitted that the prayer sought for by the plaintiff in the suit is with regard to setting aside the compromise decree dated 31st October, 2008 in Regular Appeals No.187, 193 and 3124 of 2004, arising out of judgment and 7 decree in OS No.1562 of 1990 on the file of the III Additional Munsiff, Mangaluru by the permanent Lok Adalat, as null and void. He further submitted that the plaintiffs were unaware about the compromise decree referred to above and the said compromise has been made to defeat the legitimate right of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs came to know about the compromise decree later and thereafter, secured relevant records including mutation extract from the revenue authorities and as such, the plaintiffs preferred a suit against the defendants, challenging the compromise decree as null and void.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next