Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.28 seconds)Bondu Ramaswamy & Ors vs Bangalore Development Authority & Ors on 5 May, 2010
31. Sri Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel has
submitted that the petitioners were not barred from
making a fresh representation in view of the judgment of
Bondu Ramaswamy's case (supra) and therefore, the
findings recorded by this Court in the impugned judgment
under review, that only THDCL was given an opportunity
to make representation and once the THDCL
representation came to be rejected for deletion of the
land and the THDCL has not challenged the endorsement
dated 15.06.2006. The petitioner would not have the
right to make a fresh representation, is not correct.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976
Section 17 in Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1