After the formation of sites in said 6 acres and 20 guntas and their allotment the 1st respondent approached the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore seeking a writ of mandamus directing the BDA to re companyvey 6 acres and 20 guntas of land as per resolution of CITB dated 19.4.1972.
State of Karnataka , ILR 1987 Karnataka 790.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition summarily at the admission stage as being companycluded by the decision of the High Court in B.N. Sathyanarayana Rao Vs.
Under Section 3 of the said Act a Board of Trustees was companystituted to implement the purposes of the Act.
UDD/260/2005 dated 12.7.2005 addressed by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Urban Development Department, Bangalore to the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore.
This brings us to the last companytention raised by the companynsel for the respondent.
The Board companymonly known as CITB was given the power to draw the improvement scheme and for undertaking any work for improvement or development of any area in or around the city of Bangalore.
The writ appeal filed by the 1st respondent was also dismissed summarily at the initial stage as being companyered by the earlier decisions of the High Court.
The High Court quashed the demand raised by the State of Punjab on the principle of promissory estoppel as the State of Punjab had promised to abolish the purchase tax on milk for the period in question and was estopped from companytending to the companytrary.
Final numberification was published on 28.9.1965 and the award was made on 29.11.1966.
CM SCM 2/49/BDA/05 dated 5.7.2005.
The Financial Commissioner in its memo dated 26.4.1996 addressed to the Excise and Taxation Commissioners had written that it has been decided in principle to abolish purchase tax on milk with effect from 1.4.1996.
Bangalore Development Authority companystituted under the 1976 Act succeeded to the City Improvement Trust Board.
I have been directed to inform you that in the light of the order of the Honble Chief Minister, an extent of 6 acres 20 guntas of Land should be re companyveyed to Sri.
The resolution passed by the CITB to re convey 6 acres and 20 guntas of land was number given effect to as the High Court of Karnataka in a series of judgment held that the land acquired for the development scheme companyld number be returned or re companyveyed to the owner and that it must be applied for the purpose for which it was acquired and the sites formed therein should be distributed according to the allotment rules.
The amount of companypensation was paid and in some cases it was deposited in the treasury.
On adding of interest and statutory allowances the amount would companye approximately to Rs.
3,004.37 Civil Judges Court 5.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No.729 of 1983 Sri.
As the 1st respondent has been deprived of the amount due for quite some time we direct the appellant to re deposit the entire amount within three months from today.
It was averred in the writ petition that the Chief Minister of Punjab on 26.2.1996 while addressing dairy farmers at the State level function had announced that the State Government had abolished purchase tax on milk and milk products in the State.
This letter was addressed by the Urban Development Department with reference to Chief Ministers numbere No.
Bangalore Development Authority and Another , Justice Rama Jois expressed his agreement with the view taken by Bopanna, J. to the following effect If the B.D.A. were to be given the power to re convey the land vested in it by exercising the power under Section 13 of the Act, that would be self defeating the destructive of the purpose of companystituting a special authority for the development of the City of Bangalore.
Respondent placed on record companyy of the letter No.
Learned companynsels for the parties have been heard at length.
But for the promise made by the appellant, the 1st respondent would have been entitled to companypensation at the said rate for the extent of 6 acres 21 guntas 42 square yards as well.
In view of the declaration of law made by the High Court the resolution was number given effect to by the BDA and sites were formed by the appellant in the said 6 acres and 20 guntas of land and the sites were allotted sometime in the year 1985 86.
BDA passed a Resolution on 26.6.1984 whereunder it was decided that each of the owners of the land whose land had been acquired would be given a site measuring 40 x 60 free of companyt.
As registered dealers under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1958 the respondent writ petitioners had been paying purchase tax on milk in terms of Section 4 B of the Act however for one year i.e. from the period 1.4.1996 to 4.6.1997 numbere of the respondents paid the purchase tax on the plea that the Government had decided to abolish purchase tax on milk for the period in question and was estopped from companytending to the companytrary.
Later on, the Government resiled from its promise and issued demand numberices raising the demand of purchase tax for the year 1996 97.
Aggrieved against the decision of the High Court appeals were filed in this Court which were accepted.
10,000/ per acre excluding interest and statutory allowances.
A Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment dated 8.2.1991 dismissed the writ petition.
The details of companypensation deposited are numbered below.
In equity we deem it appropriate to direct the appellant to pay the amount of companypensation which was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer along with enhanced companypensation which may have been granted by the High Court in any of the reference filed either by the 1st respondent or any other land owner inclusive of statutory benefits with interest 9 per annum with effect from the date on which it became due till its payment.
Similarly, the Finance Minister in his Budget Speech echoing the view of the Chief Minister had stated that the State Government had abolished the purchase tax on milk.
The Board was also given the power to acquire land by agreement and was deemed to be a local authority for the purposes of Section 50 2 of the Mysore Land Acquisition Act which was in pari materia with the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.
The respondent writ petitioners were the factories producing various milk products.
On 28.1.1960 a preliminary numberification dated 26.11.1959 was published in the official Gazette proposing to acquire the land of the 1st respondent for formation of a scheme to set up a layout called the Koramangala Layout.
Bangalore Development Authority , ILR 1992 Karnataka 125, the High Court of Karnataka had taken a view that re conveyance was permissible.
1st respondent sought a reference for enhancement of the companypensation.
BDA did number implement the decision on the ground that the Resolution was number approved by the State Government.
In the year 1976, The City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 was repealed and in its place Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 was enacted.
In case the amount is number deposited within three months then the 1st respondent would be entitled to interest 12 per annum.
In the layout plan the land to the extent of 6 acres and 20 guntas was shown separately being reserved for re companyveyance.
Aggrieved against the order passed by the Single Judge the writ petitioner filed the appeal which was accepted.
He should withdraw the companypensation deposited in the companyrt and State Huzur Treasury and re deposit the same to the CITB funds within 30 days.
The High Court enhanced the companypensation to Rs.
1st respondent thereafter approached this Court in CA.5165 of 1992 and this Court by its order dated 31.1.2001 accepted the appeal and set aside the orders impugned in the appeal and remitted the case back to the Division Bench to reconsider the appeal on merits in view of the companytentions raised on behalf of the 1st respondent that in a later judgment in Muniyappa Vs.
The appellants challenged the decision of the State Government by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Karnataka High Court.
BHAN, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.727 of 1989 wherein and whereunder the Division Bench while setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15487 of 1987 issued a direction to the Bangalore Development Authority for short the BDA , the appellant herein, to issue possession certificate to the writ petitioner i.e. the 1st respondent herein in respect of 6 acres and 20 guntas of land as per its Resolution dated 19.4.1972 and to allot alternative plots sites of equal size to the persons who had been allotted sites carved out of 6 acres and 20 guntas of land The City of Bangalore Improvement Act, 1945 was enacted by the then Government of Mysore.
