ASHOK BHAN, S.B.SINHA
Bangalore Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
R. Hanumaiah – Respondent
What is the legal position of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) regarding reconveyance of land acquired for development schemes under the BDA Act, 1976? What is the applicability and effect of promissory estoppel in compelling reconveyance or allotment of land where there is no express statutory provision permitting reconveyance? What is the validity and scope of Section 38-C of the Bangalore Development Authorities (Amendment) Act, 1993 and Section 9 of the Amendment Act in saving or validating past allotments or reconveyances?
Judgment
Bhan, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 727 of 1989 wherein and whereunder the Division Bench while setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 15487 of 1987 issued a direction to the Bangalore Development Authority (for short “the BDA”), the appellant herein, to issue possession certificate to the writ petitioner i.e. the 1st respondent herein in respect of 6 acres and 20 guntas of land as per its Resolution dated 19.4.1972 and to allot alternative plots/sites of equal size to the persons who had been allotted sites carved out of 6 acres and 20 guntas of land.
2. The City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 was enacted by the then Government of Mysore. Under Section 3 of the said Act a Board of Trustees was constituted to implement the purposes of the Act. The Board (commonly known as CITB) was given the power to draw the improvement scheme and for undertaking any work for improvement or development of any area in or around the city of Bangalore. The Board was also given the power to acquire land by agreement and was deemed to be a local authority for the purp
Devasahayam (D) by LRs. v. P. Savithramma & Ors.
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors.
H.C. Venkataswamy v. Bangalore Development Authority
M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
A.P. Pollution Control Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.)
Sharma Transport represented by D.P. Sharma v. Government of A.P.
Pune Municipal Corporation and Another v. Promoters and Builders Association and Another
State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd.
Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd. v. State of Punjab
Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh v. Sri Avinash Sharma
Mohan Singh v. International Airport Authority of India
Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.