Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976

16 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

PURUSHOTTAMversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2013 INSC 79729 November 2013Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered appeals against a Karnataka High Court order that declared the allotment of Civic Amenity Site No.2, originally earmarked for a bank, to Bharat Petroleum for a petrol pump null and void. The Court examined Section 38A(1) and (2) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, which permit

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

2022 INSC 7820 January 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) continues to apply to land acquisitions undertaken under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (BDA Act) after the LA Act was repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlemen

G.T. GIRISHversusY. SUBBA RAJU (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 5118 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) allotted a residential site to the first defendant in 1979, obligating her to construct a house within two years under the City of Bangalore Improvement (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1972. In 1982 she entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the site, promising posses

OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.versusBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS .

2011 INSC 5418 January 2011Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, which provides for lapse of acquisition proceedings after two years, applies to acquisitions made under the Bangalore Development Authority Act (BDA Act). The appellant argued that the acquisition had lapsed, rendering the land de‑notified, whi

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMR. SUDHAKAR HEGDE & ORS.

2020 INSC 30317 March 2020Disposed off

The Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) sought an environmental clearance (EC) for its Peripheral Ring Road (PRR) project, which was later quashed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) on the ground that the primary data used in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report was over three years old and the Terms of

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusN. JAYAMMA

2016 INSC 25610 March 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but the original owner retained actual possession and later sold the parcel to N. Jayamma in 1994. Jayamma built a house and, after more than twelve years, sued for a declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession. Th

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusBRIJESH REDDY & ANR.

2013 INSC 868 February 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had acquired certain lands under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1995 Brijesh Reddy purchased a portion of such land and later filed a suit in a civil court seeking a permanent injunction restraining the BDA from interfering with his possession. The tr

S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.versusB.R. VASUDEVA MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC.

2010 INSC 888 February 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the Mysore Inam Abolition Act, 1954, where two inamdars applied for occupancy registration of land that the State had meanwhile granted to a teachers' association (Sangha) for house sites. The inamdars settled their suit with the Sangha, withdrew their claim, and later

K.K. POONACHAversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2010 INSC 5747 September 2010Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 on the ground that it was not reserved for the President’s consideration and did not receive his assent as required by the now‑repealed Article 31(3). The Supreme Court examined whether the Act, enacted under Entry 5 of List II for city developmen

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusN. NANJAPPA AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 8276 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired a parcel of land in 1977 under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, and took possession of it. Seventeen years later, the landowner (respondent No.1) leased part of the land to respondent No.2 and sued for ejectment, obtaining a decree in his favour. BDA, not

BONDU RAMASWAMYversusBANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

2010 INSC 2715 May 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the legality of land acquisitions undertaken by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for the Arkavathi layout, focusing on whether the BDA Act required President's assent, was repugnant to the Land Acquisition Act, and complied with constitutional provisions under Parts IX and IX‑A. The

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

2018 INSC 6743 August 2018Disposed off

In 2008 the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) issued a scheme and preliminary notification under Section 17 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 to acquire land for civic amenities. Five years later, landowners filed writ petitions alleging that the BDA and the State Government had failed to issue a fin

1. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversus1. SMT. RATHNAMMA 2. SRI G ARVIND 3. SMT. RADHAMMA

2025 INSC 3453 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired land from the respondents, who voluntarily surrendered it on 31 May 2001 under the Incentive Rules of 1989. All acquisition formalities, including compensation, were completed before the Amended Incentive Rules came into force on 27 November 2002. The respondents filed

PURUSHOTHAMversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS

2015 INSC 8822 December 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the allotment of Civic Amenity Site No. 2 by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to Bharat Petroleum for a petrol pump. The Karnataka High Court had set aside the allotment, holding that the site was earmarked for a bank and that the BDA could not dispose of it under Section 38A of the

BANGALORE CITY COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2012 INSC 692 February 2012Dismissed

The Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society sought acquisition of 207 acres of land for a housing scheme, entering into an agreement with the State Government and an estate agent who was paid over Rs 5 crores to secure the acquisition. The High Court quashed the acquisition, holding that no housing scheme had been f

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search