Bda sites available for sale in bangalore dating

Plot for Sale Bangalore - Land for sale

Great savings on hotels in Bangalore, India online. Good availability and great rates. Read hotel reviews reviews. See all properties in Bangalore. Flats/Layout; Notification; Tender; E-Auction; Important Links; Act and Rules Extended date for submission of Kempegowda Layout Application From tractors and engines to construction, forestry and turf care equipment, John Deere provides equipment, tools, technology and services that fit the needs of a.

Emphasis is laid on the fact that for the first time respondent-1 refused to put the petitioner in possession of the marginal land by issuing a letter under Annexure-Q dated The learned Counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis on the fact that respondent-3 ceased to be a Chairman on when the party in power came down and the succeeding Chief Minister demanded resignation of all Chairmen of various bodies including respondent-3 on and that, therefore, respondent-3 being in office at the pleasure of the Government, ceased to hold office forthwith and he had no power to function as the Chairman of the B.

It is, therefore, submitted that whatever action was taken by respondent-3 subsequent to his becoming functus officio is totally void ab initio and that respondent-3 had acted mala fide without power. My attention was also drawn to the fact that there was no counter by the B. It was further contended that the execution of lease-cum-sale agreement by the Secretary, B. Lastly it was contended that there was a gross violation of the rules of natural justice inasmuch as no notice was given to the petitioner before cancellation of the existing allotment.

The question for consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the allotment made in favour of respondent-2 deserves to be quashed and whether respondent-1 should be directed to put the petitioner in possession of the land in question. Hegde, the learned Standing Counsel for the B. While considering the rival contentions of the parties to this Writ Petition, it would be appropriate and relevant to refer to some of the notes, minutes and instructions found in the original records made by the Chairman and other officials of the B.

It is seen from the records that site No. Srinivasalu since deceased, and the father of the petitioner, on Possession Certificate was issued and possession was taken by him on In accordance with the resolution passed by the erstwhile C.

Srinivasalu at the rate of Rs. Srinivasalu demised on and the petitioner who is the eldest son of the deceased addressed a letter to the C.

A letter was received from the C. B, by the petitioner calling upon him to produce the Death Certificate, a joint affidavit and indemnity bond from the legal representatives for taking necessary action and the Death Certificate was produced by the petitioner on and he also furnished the joint affidavit and indemnity bond on Later on the C. Thereupon the petitioner requested for time and paid a sum of Rs. Extension of time was sought by the petitioner and time was granted for payment till on which date the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.

It is interesting to note that no action was taken by the C. On the petitioner addressed to letter under Annexure-F to the B.

Bangalore - Wikipedia

On the aforesaid letter of the petitioner was referred by the B. At this stage it appears that the Chairman B. Somanna respondent-3 herein told the petitioner when he met the Chairman personally that refund cannot be granted in the light of the legal opinion and he asked the petitioner to give another letter withdrawing Annexure-F.

Onthe petitioner gave a letter withdrawing his earlier letter under Annexure-F acting on the advice of the Chairman. Again on the petitioner personally met the Chairman in his chamber and discussed the matter whereupon the Chairman issued instructions to the Executive Engineer of the B. It is seen from the concerned file that the Executive Engineer has recorded the instructions issued by the Chairman. However, no Possession Certificate was issued to the petitioner.

There was another development earlier in the year Ona portion of the site including flour mills was sold to respondent-2 by the petitioner and other legal representatives. Onthe Chairman of the B. The Chairman passed an order on approving the bifurcation of the entire plot i.

It is seen from the, file of the B. A letter of the petitioner requesting for surrender of the marginal land, as could be seen from the records of the B. Onin implementation of the resolution of the Board in subject No. Ona note was put up by the Secretary at the instance of respondent-3 that the petitioner had requested for surrender of the marginal land and that his request may be approved and the marginal land i n question be allotted to respondent-2 after accepting the surrender.

The Secretary put up the note for orders of the Chairman and the Chairman, in turn, wrote on the file on as follows: On the Chairman B.

Somanna resigned from office and that happened on a Sunday. Onrespondent-2 paid the amount in consideration of the allotment and on the same day a new Chairman was appointed. These events have factual basis and hardly admit any controversy. From the facts stated above and out of the sequence of events, it is to be seen that the petitioner made fall payment of a sum of Rs. The fact that the said amount was received by the C. Perhaps out of frustration and an unduly long wait, the petitioner gave a letter on under Annexure-F for refund of the entire amount.

After the Law Officer of the B. A, gave his opinion that refund is impermissible, it is evident that the Chairman of the B. Acting on the assurance of the Chairman of the B.

However, it was not acted upon and no Possession Certificate was issued to the petitioner though instruction was issued by the Chairman on for issue of Possession Certificate to the petitioner. Suddenly emerged a new development.

On when a note was put up by the Secretary, B. This note resulted in a Board resolution in subject No. It is on the basis of this order that the Secretary, B. On Resolution in subject No. Since the Chairman of the B. In these circumstances, the reasonable expectation was that the B. However, that was not to be. All of a sudden onthe Secretary's note surfaced at the instance of respondent-3 to the effect that the petitioner had requested for surrender of the marginal land and that his request may be approved and further the marginal land instead be allotted to respondent-2 after accepting surrender from the petitioner.

On the very same day the Chairman passed an order approving the note put up by the Secretary and an order was issued on in favour of respondent-2, in post haste, diverting the marginal land in question to respondent-2 from the petitioner and on the very next day the Chairman resigned office.

This turn about of the Chairman on a note put up by the Secretary, B. The conduct of the Chairman cannot be described as either reasonable or fair. The very Chairman who persuaded the petitioner to withdraw the surrender as far back as and passed an order directing the Executive Engineer to put the petitioner in possession of the marginal land after the petitioner withdrew the letter of surrender, changed his mind by beating a retreat without any lawful justification and accorded approval on reversing the whole process by being instrumental in the allotment of the land in question to respondent-2 in haste and for reasons best known to him on just 8 day before he tendered his resignation to the post of the Chairman.

The conduct of the Chairman in this regard cannot but be reprehensible and the facts speak for themselves.

What transpired at the stage and what prompted the Chairman to pass an order which, in my opinion, rests in the realm of speculation and it is not necessary for me to delve into the mind of the Chairman as I am reminded of the famous dictum that the intention of a man cannot be judged because devil himself does not know what is in the mind of man.

There can be no doubt about the fact that the circumstances in which the reversal took place is fishy to say the least.

Kanakashree Layout Hennur - BDA Approved Sites Sale

It is also seen that on when B. Somanna resigned from office, his successor was appointed. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why the matter should not have been left to the discretion of the succeeding Chairman in preference to a questionable act of preemption.

Fair administrative procedure was thrown to the winds. Norms which should guide the action of a public authority discharging public duties were abandoned. Power was misused and the petitioner became the victim.

Looking into these facts and circumstances, it is impossible to reconcile the legitimacy of the order passed by the B. The question of acceptance of a dead letter vide Annexure-F could not have arisen for consideration at all because that letter was withdrawn by the petitioner on by addressing another letter to the Chairman seeking grant of Possession Certificate.

Annexure-F which is the letter that was given by the petitioner on had died its natural death particularly after it was withdrawn by the petitioner and in its place a fresh letter was given to the Chairman asking for possession and more particularly after the Chairman gave instructions on to the Executive Engineer to issue the Possession Certificate to the petitioner.

In this regard, I cannot disbelieve the instructions noted by the Executive Engineer in the relevant file as issued by the Chairman. Instructions were issued by the Chairman on and they found place in the records on as recorded by the Executive Engineer himself. The necessary, natural and proper consequence should have been the grant of Possession Certificate to the petitioner.

But for reasons best known to the Chairman and the Executive Engineer, the order for grant of Possession Certificate did not see the light of the day. Between anda considerable time elapsed. During this period, another event took place which cannot be lost sight of. A portion of the site including the flour mills existing on site No. Oneven though a note was put up by the Secretary that the petitioner had paid the entire amount in respect of the marginal land and only Possession Certificate remained to be issued and he drew the attention of the Chairman that the letter of surrender had been rejected by the Board already, and notwithstanding the Board's resolution in subject No.

Consistency In the conduct of the Chairman is conspicuously non-existent and too glaring to be ignored. How the same Secretary put up a different note on within a matter of five days contrary to the earlier note datedis also open to question.

Whereas on the Secretary indicated indirectly the right of the petitioner to be put in possession, on the very Secretary virtually coaxed the Chairman to accept the surrender of land when the letter of surrender was no longer in existence consequent to its withdrawal onand for approval of allotment of the marginal land to respondent-2 is shocking indeed and even more shocking is the conduct of the Chairman in approving the note of the Secretary put up on and ordering allotment in favour of respondent-2 on the very next day before tendering his resignation to the post of Chairman a day later, on a Sunday.

We are concerned with the legality of the denial of Possession Certificate to the petitioner apart from the legality and fairness of allotment of the very same land to respondent I have no doubt in my mind that the conduct of the Chairman in the facts and circumstances of the case permits any scope for the assumption, is beyond reproach.

Apart from the unilateral action taken by the Chairman during the dying minutes of his office, the question arises as to why a reasonable opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner before a decision was taken to reverse the earlier order and to make a fresh allotment in favour of respondent The principles of natural justice enter the scene here. Fairplay requires that the petitioner who would suffer civil consequences of revocation of the earlier order of allotment and a decision for making a fresh allotment to respondent-2 should have been permitted to make his representation to substantiate his case for grant of Possession Certificate in the context of the earlier decision taken in the matter by the B.

  • The 30 Best Hotels in Bangalore
  • 4,980+ BDA Approved Sites in Bangalore for Sale as on 13 Jan, 2019
  • Land for sale - Plot for Sale Bangalore

Denial of this opportunity amounts to a flagrant violation of the Rule of Law and is further accentuated by the failure of a public authority in the performance of its statutory functions. There is no room for arbitrariness in a matter of this nature where substantive rights of the parties are involved.

The principle of promissory estoppel is attracted to the facts of this case. Having accepted the withdrawal of the letter of surrender, having received the monetary consideration together with penal interest for delayed payment from the petitioner for the allotment of the land, having issued a direction for issue of Possession Certificate to the petitioner, it is not open to the B.

I am of the opinion that the principle of promissory estoppel comes to the aid of the petitioner. It is significant that before a fresh allotment was made in favour of respondent-2, there was no order of cancellation of the allotment earlier made.

The petitioner is justified in entertaining a legitimate expectation that the B. The contentions to the contrary advanced on behalf of the respondents do not stand to reason. It is unnecessary to go into the other contentions urged by the respondents questioning the right of the petitioner to Possession Certificate on the ground that the original allotment order was passed in favour of K.

Srinivasalu and that the firm underwent a constitutional change subsequent to partition in the family ultimately resulting in the formation of a Company and transfer of interest to the Company. These are matters which are best left out of consideration for the purpose of determining the specific points in issue in this Writ Petition.

Select your Country or Region

In my opinion, the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents deserve to be relegated to the back-ground since they are not relevant to the points in issue. Another point which requires consideration is the validity of the execution of an agreement by the Secretary of the B.

According to Section 10 6 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, "a contract not made or executed as provided in this Section and the Rules made thereunder shall be null and void and shall not be binding on the Authority. In the instant case, the agreement has been executed by the Secretary for B.

Couple Friendly Hotels In Bangalore

I am of the opinion that there is a violation of statutory mandate contained in Sub-section 3 of Section 10 of the Act and, therefore, the agreement executed by the Secretary for B. Another relevant point for consideration is whether the impugned order of allotment in favour of respondent-2 is sustainable without a resolution of the Board and particularly in view of the existence of an earlier resolution of the Board passed on in subject No.

This Board's resolution remains undisturbed. The fort was originally built by Kempe Gowda I as a mud fort in Bangalore Palacebuilt in in Tudor architectural style was modelled on the Windsor Castle in England.

Kempe Gowda was restricted by rules made by Achuta Deva Raya, who feared the potential power of Kempe Gowda and did not allow a formidable stone fort. Hyder Ali is credited with building the Delhi and Mysore gates at the northern and southern ends of the city in Hyder and Tipu contributed towards the beautification of the city by building Lal Bagh Botanical Gardens in Under them, Bangalore developed into a commercial and military centre of strategic importance. It was abolished in only to be revived in at Bangalore and to be closed down permanently inwith Indian independence.

A town grew up around the cantonment, by absorbing several villages in the area. The new centre had its own municipal and administrative apparatus, though technically it was a British enclave within the territory of the Wodeyar Kings of the Princely State of Mysore. The Bangalore torpedo was invented in Bangalore in While it remained in the princely territory of Mysore, Cantonment had a large military presence and a cosmopolitan civilian population that came from outside the princely state of Mysore, including British and Anglo-Indians army officers.

The crisis caused by the outbreak catalysed the city's sanitation process.

Demolition scare looms over 3, BDA plots in 14 layouts | Bengaluru News - Times of India

Telephone lines were laid to help co-ordinate anti-plague operations. Regulations for building new houses with proper sanitation facilities came into effect. A health officer was appointed and the city divided into four wards for better co-ordination.