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):||2 September 2018|
|PDF File Size:||17.68 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.23 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity.
Satish Kumar Gupta And Others v. Sri R Adhikesavulu Naidu v. Aflatoon And Others v. Section 28 -A of the Land Acquisition Act?
KIADB Act will be amended: Nirani
Main contention urged by Sri B. It is with this intention that industrial Estates are planned in rural areas which not only provide employment to residents of the rural area Board For Industrial Financial Reconstruction.
In case of land acquired from farmers, they would be given suitable compensation and their children would be given jobs, Mr. Intellectual Property Appellate Board 1. Section 28 -A of the Land Acquisition Act?
KIADB Act will be amended: Nirani – KARNATAKA – The Hindu
Section 30 of the Actthe provisions of L. Although, it has been duly mentioned in the judgment under appeal, we reiterate that as far as the benefits under Section 23 1-A of the Act are Madhya Pradesh High Court.
Junjamma And Others v.
Union Of India And Others v. Whether each successive award kladb judgment and decree if answer on Question 1 is positive would give cause of action to file application under Section 28 -A; if so construed, does not such a Corruption Actregistered by the Madurai Detachment of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption against the petitioner, is well within the competence of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal 0.
Petitioner submits that this increase in area was made mala fidely and the land of the petitioner is not required. The Board has been constituted under Section 3 of the U. Rajasthan High Court 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 Th Oswald Vagas Others v. Narayana Setty And Others v.
Intellectual Property Appellate Board. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and was, therefore, valid. Between andabout It is further submitted that the notification is absolutely vague as survey Gyan Devi Dead By Lrs. Section 3 relates to declaration of industrial areas and empowers the State Government to declare any area in the State to be an Gauhati High Court Regulation of planned growth of land use and development and making and execution of town planning schemes in the State Establishment Act25 of or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may also direct the Public Rodrigueses And Another v.
The ratio of Kasireddy Papaiah case was quoted with approval by a three-Judge Bench in Rules 42 and 43 of the U. But it is a part of the continuing process of development.
The said lands along with some others were proposed to be acquired for development of industries under the Mysore now Karnataka Sikkim High Court kuadb. O Kalliani Kutty Amma v.