Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.37 seconds)
T.R.Thandur vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 April, 1996 cites

S. Vasudeva And D.P. Sharma And C. Kannan vs State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 1989

The petitioner booked a small flat with an area of 950 sq.ft. in a multi-storeyed building containing several flats on the excess vacant land belonging to respondent No.3, exempted under Section 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 to be constructed by respondent no.4 in survey No.44, Marenahalli Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South taluk. Under the agreement, the petitioner was to purchase the flat together with 1/48 share in the land on which the building was to be constructed. Under the Karnataka Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972 the promoter, namely, respondent no.4, is required to convey title and execute documents for the share in land of the flat/apartment. The petitioner took necessary steps for purchase of the flat together with his share of the land on which the multi-storeyed building is constructed. However, the respondent no.4 regretted its inability vide later dated 20.6.1993 to either execute the conveyance for transfer of the petitioner's share of land or to handover possession of the said flat to him be-cause of the order dated 16.6.1993 of the Karnataka High Court. The petitioner was informed that the Karnataka High Court, by the said order, had restrained the State Government from issuing any orders permitting transfer of the excess vacant land and therefore, the respondents were not in a position to comply with the petitioner's demand. The order of the Karnataka High Court is based on the decision of this Court in S.Vasudeva/D.P.Sharma Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors., 1993 (3) scc 467, which prohibits transfer of any part of the exceess vacant land in respect of which exemption is granted under Section 20(1)(b) of Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. The decision in S.Vasudeva being the basis of the impugned action, this writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging this action; and for that reason, correctness of the decision in S.Vasudeva arises for consideration. No other facts are material for deciding the question raised in this writ petition.
Karnataka High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1