Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
E.S. INDIRESH, J
SHRI. PRAKASH N. BALDOTA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and proposed acquisition notifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. petitioner's challenges and case precedents. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. respondent's arguments on delay and res judicata. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. court's evaluation of acquisition lapsing. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 5. decision on writ petition and validity of notifications. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
CAV ORDER
It is stated in the petition that, the petitioner is owner in possession of 2 acre 21 guntas in Sy.No.89 of Uttarahalli Village, Bengaluru South Taluk and to substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced the RTC extracts. It is stated that, the respondent-authorities have issued notification under Section 17(1) and (3) of Bangalore Development Authority Act , 1976 (for short, 'the Act'), vide Annexure-B dated 29.12.1988 and thereafter, issued notification dated 09.05.1994 under Section 19(1) of the Act (Annexure-C), proposed to acquire the lands for the purpose of formation of layout known as “Banashankari V stage”.
2. It is further stated in the writ petition that, the respondent has issued New Housing Policy as per Annexure-D, wherein it is indicated that, in the event
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
