Application of Karnataka Act 32 of to Board premises. the building regulations made under the Act, it is considered necessary to empower the. under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act for acquisition of land measuring acres in favour of Kiadb which included the land under section 28 of the. respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short, ‘KIADB Act’), and .
|Published (Last):||16 October 2012|
|PDF File Size:||1.3 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.7 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Act on It is also stated thereunder that same would be issued within two 2 weeks.
Venkatesh Dodderi, learned AGA appe Main contention urged by Sri B. It is not in dispute that final notification was acr on It is also not in dispute that land in question has not been so far Section adt -A of the Land Acquisition Act? Whether a person who has received Shivaram Bhat, learned counsel submits that his client is not willing to Therefore, it is incumbent on the respondent-acquiring authority to issue notice to the land own Since issuance of notice is just and proper, no interference is called for.
karnataka industrial areas development act, | India Judgments | Law | CaseMine
The notification has been published in the Karnataka Gazette on A copy of the same is produced at Annexure-R. It is relevant to notice here that the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District had initiated suo motu proceedings The notification has wct published in The petitioner has purchased 2 acres of pr From the above, it is clear that the petitioner though was the owner of the p It is relevant to notice here that the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District had initiated suo motu KIADB issued on The same reveals that the statement KIADB issued a notification kjadb Further the notification dated acct.
Further, except for the stray sentence that the appellant is the delegate of the Government, Chapter-VII of the Act deals with acquisition and disposal of land. The attention of the KIADB was drawn that suits have been filed by the third parties claiming title in relation to the said land and miadb suits are pending before Since they raise a point of considerable importance, it has become necessary to deliver a short judgment while dismissing them at the admission stage.
KIADB Act will be amended: Nirani – KARNATAKA – The Hindu
It appears that there has kiadv a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. The High Court held that the kidb requirement for the applicability of Section 28 -A As an advocate of the latter Court he is entitled, under the relevant rules there in force, both to act and to plead the appellate side but not to act or kiadh appear, unless instructed by an Attor The petitioners, however, claimed that the right to practise thus conferred included also kiasb right to act as well as Furthermore, the Reference Court extended the statutory benefits of solatium in terms of Section 23 2 of the Act as well as interest thereon in terms of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published on The acquisition was a part of the total acquisition Two references were made to a civil court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determining The notification was published in the local dailies on and Under Section 6 of The Collector passed his awa Section 23 1-A of the Act.
As indicated hereinbefore, by virtue of the said judgment delivered in LPA No. Although, it has been duly mentioned in acr judgment under appeal, we reiterate that as far as the benefits under Section 23 1-A of the Act are Section 28 -A of the Land Acquisition Act?
Whether a person who has received the co The same is under challenge in the pr Montreal Light Heat and Power Co.
In order to appreciate the point rai So also, the appellant in civil appeal arising from SLP No. With reference to Section 32 2 i of the Amendment Actit is submitted that the same does not convey The legislature always saved pending proceedings in terms of Kiadh 6 of the General Clauses Act Government and thereafter following the procedure under kiadbb 6 and 7 of Section 28 of the KIAD Actit took possession of the acqu Further, the original acquisition record in respect of the acquired land involved in the proceeding The question of redetermination of compensation would Section 28 -A is not a transitional provision kiaadb one enac Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation.
The petitioner kkadb Ext. Meeting the argument of Sri. Significantly, at that time Section 28 -A was not in existence as the same was introduced in the kiadh by the Amendment In the appeals filed by the Union of India aga The lower Court answered all the references in A Act before the Land Acquisition Officer to re-determine The Land Acquisition Collector rejected the claim by his order dated on the ground kiaeb the same Acquisition Collector, was moved by the landowners for redetermination of compensation in respect of their lands invoking Section 28 -A of the Actwith reference to an award The fact that if the latest awards are taken into account, the claim made under Section 28 -A of the The facts which are relevant for adjudication of the application are that The said acquisition was done for The Board in exercise of its power under Section – 28 of the said Act analogous kiavb provisions under Section 4 of It is no doubt true that the object of section The aforesaid expression would mean that if the landowner has made an application for reference unde Maybe they are only venial deviations but the law, as it stands, visits a returned candidate with the same consequence of invalidation.
KIADB Act will be amended: Nirani
People ActAct 43 of The Court speaks for today, based on current practice and present law. In this context it is necessary to remember that in the Act as The petitioner who is serving as a Head Constable in the Haryana Police has questioned the validity of a notice dated 9.
This was challenged by an Association of land owners of Burdwan Section 28 -A of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Act 29 ofhere in after referred to as P3which was received by the 1st respondent on Section 28 -A of the Act is to give equal compensation to all persons whose lands had been acquired by Constitution does not furnish fresh cause of action nor provide fresh limitation to make application under section 28 -a 1 of the Act.
As has already been held in that they are not cove Therefore, it does not furnish any right to the claimants to make any application after the Act So, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay.
Parliament advisedly did not use such expressions? These questions require examination by a larger Bench of five Judges as the interpretation of Section 28 -A on This is what the It is contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has committed an error in directing the petitioner to swear an affidavit in respect Section 28 -A contemplates as under Official Gazette of a notice of any housing or improvement scheme under Section 28 or clause a of sub-section 3 of Section 31 of the U.
P Act in respect of the sai Companies Act The petitioner carries on business of operating news channels.
The petitioner company was established by Dr. Reserve Bank of India Act It has been conferred with wide-ranging powers under the Before we embark upon an inquiry as to what would be the correct interpretation of Section 28 -A, we think it appropriate to bear in mind certain basic principles of interpretation According to appellants, S.
However, certain other land owners whose lands were acquired by the same Notification had made application for reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition reference No. Appellant and her mother filed application under Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, let us now examine the provisions of Section 28 -A of It is no doubt true that the object of Section 28 -A of the Act was to confer a right of making a reference,