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

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI KRISHNAM RAJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


O R D E R

Heard the learned Senior counsel Shri S.M.

Chandrashekar appearing for the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent – BDA.

2. It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.21/3 measuring 31 guntas of Hulimavu village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The land was earlier said to be part of land bearing Sy.No.21/2 which totally measured 1 acre 11 guntas. The land had been purchased by the petitioner’s father in the year 1944. The said land was notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BDA Act’, for brevity), for the purpose of formation of a residential layout known as Byresandra Tavarekere and Madiwala (BTM) 6th Stage Layout, as per the preliminary notification dated 8.9.1987, followed by a final notification issued on 28.07.1990. However, even after a lapse of more than 17 years from the date of the final notification, the land has not been utilized for the formation of the layout. The petitioner is said to have purchased the land on 3.2.2012, much after the final notification was issued.

3. It is stated by the learned Senior A

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