SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Kar) 142

S. R. NARAYANA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent


Advocates:
M.B.PRABHAKAR, S.K.Jagannath, U.L.NARAYAN RAO

KA. SWAMI, J.

( 1 ) AT the stage of admission, records are received. The respondent has been notified and it has put in appearance through a counsel.

( 2 ) AS the appeal can be disposed of on a short point, it is admitted and heard for final disposal.

( 3 ) DURING the course of bearing, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-b. d. a. has produced two gazette notifications dated 20-5-1984 published in the official gazette, dated 28-6-1984 and 23-11-1988 published in the official gazette, dated 23-2-1989 issued under sections 17 (1) and 19 (1) respectively of the Bangalore development authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') acquiring the suit lands along with several other lands for the formation of shinivagalu tank bed (breached) and surrounding area layout. Sri U. L. Narayana rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that he has no objection for permitting the b. d. a. to produce the aforesaid two notifications as additional evidence. In addition to this, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, that one of ihe lands viz. , s. No. 21/3 was withdrawn from acquisition and in support of this, he has produced a gazette





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top