KAHC010364002010_1
11 Jul 2014...
Search Results for "Combined Development Plan"
212 result(s) found
Found 212 result(s)
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Landowners' Writ Petition Challenging Refusal to Change Master Plan Road Alignment. Change of Alignment of 30-Meter Road Not Permissible in Interregnum Under Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961; Decision of Planning Authority Upheld.
2 Jun 2023The case arose from a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by two landowners, K. Gopalagowda and R. Ravichandar...
- 73
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows PIL Against APMC for Illegal Construction Without Development Permission Under MRTP Act. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Not a Local Authority Under Section 2(15) of MRTP Act, Hence Not Exempt from Section 44.
3 Aug 2017This Public Interest Litigation was filed by Goroba Pandurang Gadekar against the State of Maharashtra, Latur Municipal Corporation, Agricultural Prod...
- 83
High Court
High Court of Karnataka Upholds Validity of Premium Floor Area Ratio Scheme and Rejects Challenges Under Articles 14, 21, 243ZE, and 300A of Constitution. Section 18-B of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and Section 38-D of Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 Held Not Violative of Constitution, and All Impugned Notifications Sustained.
15 Jun 2026The matter concerns a batch of cases challenging the constitutional validity of statutory provisions introducing the Premium Floor Area Ratio (FAR) sc...
- 88
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Eviction Orders in Redevelopment Project Under DCR 33(7). Petitioners offered alternative accommodation on same land but challenged eviction notices; court held that once consent is given for redevelopment, eviction is lawful and challenge is not maintainable.
6 Feb 2015The petitioners, Vijay Shantaram Mandavkar and others, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Cou...
- 157
High Court
Bombay High Court Considers Constitutional Challenge to Development Control Regulation 33(7) Allowing Enhanced FSI for Reconstruction. Petition Filed by Public-Spirited Citizens Claims Regulation Exacerbates Population Congestion in Island City.
11 Dec 2006This public interest litigation, filed by three public-spirited citizens of Mumbai, challenged the legality of Regulation 33(7) of the Development Con...
- 79
High Court
- 168
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Developer's Challenge to High Power Committee Order in Slum Rehabilitation Dispute. Committee's decision to replace developer with new developer upheld as within its powers under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991.
29 Jan 2019The petitioner, M/s. Sreepati Built Infras Investment Ltd., a developer, challenged the order dated 29/4/2017 passed by the High Power Committee (resp...
- 138
High Court
- 69
High Court
- 79
