R.M.SAHAI, T.K.THOMMEN
Bangalore Medical Trust – Appellant
Versus
B. S. Muddappa – Respondent
JUDGMENT
THOMMEN, J.:— Leave granted.
2. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment of my learned Brother Sahai, J. and I am in complete agreement with what he has stated. It is in support of his reasoning and conclusion that I add the following words.
3. A site near the Sankeys Tank in Rajmahal Vilas Extension in the City of Bangalore was reserved as an open space in an improvement scheme adopted under the City. of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945. This Act was repealed by Section 76 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act No. 12 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") which received the assent of the Governor on 2-3-1976 and is deemed to have come into force on 20-12-1975. By a notification issued under Section 3 of the Act, the Government constituted the Bangalore, Development Authority (the "BDA"), thereby attracting Section 76 which, so far as it is material, reads:-
"76. Repeal and Savings (1) On the issue of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3 constituting the Bangalore Development Authority, the City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 (Mysore Act 5 of 1945) shall stand repealed.
(2) & (3).............................
referred to : Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited v. Union of India
relied on : S.P. Gupta v. Union of India
Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Rly.) v. Union of India
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India
Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited v. Union of India
referred to : Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.
Municipal council, Ratlam v. Vardhichand
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
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.