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

1996 Supreme(Kar) 65

B.N.MALLIKARJUNA, M.L.PENDSE
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Appellant
Versus
H. S. HANUMANTHAPPA – Respondent


M. L. PENDSE, J.

( 1 ) THESE three appeals are directed against judgment dated february 20, 1992, delivered by learned single judge in writ petition No. 20377 of 1989. Writ appeal No. 693 of 1992 is preferred by the bangalore development authority, while the remaining two appeals are preferred by allottees of sites from the bangalore development authority. The allottees were not parties to the proceedings before the learned single judge. As the issue raised in all the three appeals is common, the appeals are disposed of by common judgment.

( 2 ) THE Karnataka legislature passed the bangalore development authority Act, 1976 (for short 'the act'), to provide for the establishment of a development authority for the development of the city of bangalore and the areas adjacent thereto and for the matters connected therewith. Section 3 of the ACT provides for constitution and incorporation of the authority to be called as the bangalore development authority. The authority is a body corporate and was constituted to promote and secure the development of the bangalore metropolitan area. Section 14 confers upon the authority the power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of movable and immova













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