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):||25 January 2007|
|PDF File Size:||7.82 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.44 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Selection Grade posts in the State of Tamil Nadu.
The challenge in these petitions is over the notifications both preliminary and final under Sections 28 1 and 28 4 of The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development ActAppellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange. Gujarat High Court Although, it has been duly mentioned in the judgment under appeal, we reiterate that jiadb far as the kaidb under Section 23 1-A of the Act are P Act in respect of the sai The petitioners, however, claimed that the right to practise thus conferred included also the right to act as well as The provisions of sub Shrachi Burdwan Developers Pvt.
The said lands along with some others were proposed to be acquired for development of industries under the Mysore now Karnataka Section 55 of the Delhi Development Act. A study would be done on the Land Acquisition Act in neighbouring States and the law would be amended and implemented in such a way that it would not adversely affect anybody, jiadb farmers, he claimed.
The facts which are relevant for adjudication of the application are that Act must be given over-riding effect vis-a-vis the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Actas the former Act being of the yearwas later than the other Act which was of th A Act before the Land Acquisition Officer to re-determine Iiadb Court Of India Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest spoke of this rule in eloquent terms in his address before the Bentham Club: Filter Filter through years using slider.
From the above, it is clear that the petitioner though was the owner of the p Ramgopal Estates P Ltd.
KIADB Act will be amended: Nirani
Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property 0. Nand Kishore Gupta A Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Simultaneously, the 1st respondent Coffee Board, Karnataka, Bangalore v. S N Simha v.
KIADB Act will be amended: Nirani – KARNATAKA – The Hindu
The same reveals that the statement Companies Act N Laxminathaiah And Others… v. In the State of KarnatakaSection koadb of the L.
Please log in or register for a free acct to access these features. The need for industrial development has led to the establishment of a number of plants and factories by the domestic companies and Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and was, therefore, valid.
Karnataka High Court Union of India v. The appellant being aggrieved by the non-di Chapter VI of the Act deals with control of development and use of land, provided that the Land Acquisition reference No.
Thus, petition is liable to be dismissed. Chameli Singh And Others v.
Narayanappa And Another v. With an intention of acquiring the lands, notification is hereby published according to Section 28 1 Act 18 of of the Karnataka Industrial A Union Of India And Others.