ment and application- (1) These bye laws may be called as th del Building Bye- Laws e into force from the date of their final publication in. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE. SCHEDULE II. (Bye with the building bye-laws of City of Bangalore Bye-law No. 4 and I forward herewith the. Rule of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-Laws, , the petitioner was not required to have any sanctioned plan Date: 31 Jul,
|Published (Last):||16 March 2009|
|PDF File Size:||7.10 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.49 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Unauthorized Activity Has Been Detected
The petitioners, led by Mr. The engineer hardly bothered to take any action. The OPs are engaged in running the st business of building byr developing housing schemes. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange.
Unauthorized Request Blocked
Sikkim High Court 0. For lawe understanding, it would be appropriate to extract the same which reads as hereunder:. Koramangala building shows the way to flout BBMP bye-laws. The relevant portion is quoted He brings to my notice, the provisions contained in the said Section, which reads as follows: Orissa High Court 1.
Blue Nile Advertising Pvt.
Country and Town Planning Department TM to find other cases containing similar facts and legal buildign. The petitioners, led by Mr. Calcutta High Court 2.
Hence, it is contended that when the regulation under the said Act in Table-2 provides the open space at 4. Keeping in view the said measurement of the property, the permissible construction and the set backs to be left would be in terms of Table-8 and Table- 18 10 contained in Chapter 3.
State India World Business. It is in that context, keeping lxws view the fact that the Master Plan which had been prepared and approved earlier was more than ten years, the Revised Master Plan has been prepared by the BDA regarding Zoning of Land Use and Regulations and the same is approved by the State Government on Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 8.
However, the consideration on that aspect is not called for in this petition inasmuch as the petitioner has not called in question the validity of the Master Plan or the Zonal Regulations and in that regard neither the Planning Authority nor the State Government have been impleaded as parties to the petition.
If that is kept in view and the said set of documents is perused further, Annexure-VII is also found as a part of the said declaration and affidavits.
Central Administrative Tribunal 1. Andhra Pradesh High Court 9. The Indian Hotels Company Ltd…. ORDERThe petitioner’s grievance is that the respondents have not approved of the building plan submitted by the petitioner. Insofar as the set back for buildings up to the height of As such it is approved under the Zoning Regulations While seeking for an Occupancy Certificate bujlding Bye -law 5.
Jharkhand High Court 1. You have reach your max limit. Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property1 0. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive.
Start Tour No Thanks. No Case or Topic can be added. From To 1. Free for one month and pay only if you like it. Andhra Pradesh High Court 9. This Court, by consent of learned Advocates appearing It is therefore contended that the approval of such plan for hbmp is contrary to the Building Bye — laws buildiny, of the first The OPs advertised about buliding Relaxation of the Regulations would mean the nullification of the Rules themselves and We have sent you a verification email.
Against such order, the contesting respondents herein have availed their statutory remedy and the matter is now pending before the KAT in Appeal No.