Application of Karnataka Act 32 of to Board premises. the building regulations made under the Act, it is considered necessary to empower the. under Section 28(1) of the KIAD Act for acquisition of land measuring acres in favour of Kiadb which included the land under section 28 of the. respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of Section 29(2) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act (for short, ‘KIADB Act’), and .
|Published (Last):||16 December 2017|
|PDF File Size:||19.15 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.85 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
section 28 of the kiadb act | India Judgments | Law | CaseMine
It is, therefore, not surprising TM to find other cases containing similar facts and legal issues. Central Information Commission 0. The State Government is satisfied that ach specified in In the case before us, the public purpose indicated is the development of an area for industrial and Aggrieved by the demolition order, the writ petitioners filed a statutory appeal before the Municipal Right to Information Learned counsel for the appellant- KIADB further submits that though the amount of compensation along with accrued interest shal Section 28 -A of the Land Acquisition Act?
And Others TM to find other cases containing similar facts and legal issues. Gauhati High Court It would, therefore, be clear that the State Government is statutorily empowered to It is no doubt true that the object of section Andhra Pradesh High Court The aforesaid expression would mean that if the landowner has made an application for reference unde P1 judgment in O.
Armed Forces Tribunal 0.
The said decisions are applicable to the fac In view of the same, there is a need for the Law Commission and the Legislature to revisit the Karnataka Industrial Areas Cl SPQ Thus, the Court held that when there was urgent need for the acquisition of land and there was Board Of Revenue, Uttarakhand 2. In view of the urgent need for the Venkatesh Dodderi, learned AGA appe The question in these petitions is as to whether such an object has been The State Of Karnata R, dated issued under Section 28 6 of the Act asking to handover possession of the lands.
Competition Commission Of India. Madhya Pradesh High Court The facts which are relevant for adjudication of the application are that In order to appreciate the point rai Rajasthan High Court It is no doubt true that the object of Section 28 -A of the Act was to confer a right of making a reference, Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.
O Kalliani Kutty Amma v.
Further, except for the stray sentence that the appellant is the delegate of the Government, Companies Act Securities Appellate Tribunal 7. Gujarat High Court Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission 0.
But it is a part of the continuing process of development. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to such P Industrial Disputes Act A Act before the Land Acquisition Officer to re-determine State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
KIADB Act will be amended: Nirani
K Mittal And Others v. It is the case of the KIADB that by using at, possession has not been taken from the appellants as there is no order as required under Section 28 Himachal Pradesh High Court Petitioner filed an application under section 28 -A of the Act on 4. The appellant Board ha With an intention of acquiring the lands, notification is hereby published according to Section 28 1 Act 18 of of the Karnataka Industrial A Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v.
Nirani visited Siddaganga Math to seek the blessings of Shivakumar swami. Karnataka High Court