Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Land law

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus JAI HIND PVT. LTD.

The Revenue Officer had no statutory power to undertake a substantive review of the 1971 vesting order; the Government Order of 26.02.2008 could not confer such jurisdiction; the 2008 review order failed the limited judicial tests for review under Order XLVII r.1 CPC and was void for want of jurisdiction; the respondent-company failed to prove exclusive engagement in agricultural farming as on 01.01.1952 under s.6(1)(j) WBEA Act, 1953; consequently the Tribunal rightly quashed the 2008 review order and restored the 1971 vesting order.

Source excerpt

  • Power of review
  • Vesting of land
  • Section 6(1)(j) wbea act 1953
  • Section 57a wbea act 1953
  • Separation of powers
  • Order xlvii rule 1 cpc
Read case analysis
Forest law

ROHAN VIJAY NAHAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Where vesting under Section 3(1) of the MPFA is asserted on the basis of Section 2(f)(iii) by reference to notices under Section 35(3) of the IFA, those notices must have been served in accordance with Section 35(5) and form part of a live process capable of culminating in a Section 35(1) notification; absent proof of service, a final notification and other contemporaneous statutory steps (possession, inquiry, compensation), vesting has not occurred and consequential revenue mutation entries cannot perfect acquisition; accordingly the High Court’s dismissal was set aside and impugned mutation…

Source excerpt

  • Vesting under maharashtra private forests (acquisition) act, 1975
  • Service of notice under section 35(3) of the indian forest act, 1927
  • Mutation and revenue entries
  • Strict construction of expropriatory legislation
  • Precedent and stare decisis
  • Article 141 and judicial discipline
Read case analysis
Land law

DIVYANGNAKUMARI HARISINH PARMAR (DEAD) AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court: the OA (Article 12) is the governing law for the Alvara concessions; fresh grounds based on the 1917 Law or Decree raised at the appellate stage could not be entertained; the pleas of waiver, acquiescence, delay, impossibility and condonation were not proved; the Collector's 30.04.1974 order was validly based on inspection and lawful application of Article 12 and not vitiated by mala fides; accordingly the appeals were dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Land
  • Agricultural land
  • Emphyteusis
  • Organizacao agraria
  • Alvaras
  • Perpetual lease
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

THE STATE OF HARYANA versus JAI SINGH AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's conclusion that lands not earmarked or reserved for specific common purposes under the consolidation scheme (bachat or unutilized land) do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State but remain with proprietors and must be redistributed in proportion to their contributions; the Court also held that the High Court rightly applied the doctrine of stare decisis to follow a consistent line of High Court decisions and dismissed the State's appeal.

Source excerpt

  • Article 31-a
  • Shamilat deh
  • Consolidation scheme
  • Bachat land
  • Doctrine of stare decisis
  • Acquisition and compensation
Read case analysis
Environmental law

T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Court refused the State's request to permit use of fragmented land parcels without compliance with Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, directed that all such fragmented parcels be declared protected forest, but allowed limited regularisation of encroachments made prior to 12 December 1996 for specified uses up to 10365.049 hectares as recommended by the Central Empowered Committee, adding paragraph (x-a) to the earlier judgment to that effect.

Source excerpt

  • Scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers (recognition of forest rights) act, 2006
  • Protected forest declaration
  • Regularisation of encroachments
Read case analysis
Administrative law

OLD JALUKAI VILLAGE COUNCIL versus KAKIHO VILLAGE & ORS.

The procedure prescribed in the O.M.s dated 22.03.1996 and 01.10.2005 was not complied with in this case because objections to the public notice (including from the appellant) were not shown to have been adequately considered; the inter-district boundary dispute had no nexus to the recognition of respondent no.1 village on the facts, and therefore the High Court's observations as to compliance are set aside; the State is directed to re-issue the public notice, exhaustively consider all objections including the appellant’s, and decide within six months, failing which strict view will be taken.

Source excerpt

  • Village recognition
  • Public notice and objections
  • No objection certificate
  • Inter-district boundary dispute
  • Cabinet decisions
  • Article 371a
Read case analysis
Land law

SRI PRASANTA KUMAR PAL & ORS versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to accept a prima facie view that the 1967 registered gift deed was benami; because the deed was registered and given effect in revenue records in 1969, it could not be invalidated merely by reference to a subsequent amendment, and therefore the Tribunal's order setting aside the Revenue Officer's benami finding was restored.

Source excerpt

  • Surplus land
  • Benami transaction
  • Retrospective amendment
  • Registered gift deed
  • Vesting of land
Read case analysis
Land law

YERIKALA SUNKALAMMA & ANR. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the appellants, having produced a registered sale deed, a pattadar passbook and land revenue receipts and having been in continuous possession since 1970, were entitled to the presumption of ownership under Section 6 of the ROR Act, 1971 and s.113 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023; the State failed to prove the land was an assigned land or that resumption had been lawfully established, and therefore appellants have pattadar title; because restoration of possession was impracticable (construction long completed) the Court awarded compensation of Rs.70,00,000 t…

Source excerpt

  • Patta
  • Pattadar passbook
  • Assigned lands
  • Resumption of land
  • Possession as proof of ownership (s.113 bhartiya sakshya adhiniyam, 2023)
  • Section 80 cpc notice
Read case analysis
Land law

M/S A.P. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION versus THE TAHSILDAR & ORS. ETC.

The State failed to establish by cogent evidence that actual physical (de facto) possession of the surplus land had been taken before the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 came into force; mere vesting on paper or reliance on defective/backdated notices and a panchnama prepared after repeal is insufficient to deny the appellant the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act; the Single Judge's factual findings to that effect were correct and the Division Bench erred in setting them aside.

Source excerpt

  • Section 3 of the urban land (ceiling and regulation) repeal act, 1999
  • Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the urban land (ceiling and regulation) act, 1976
  • Possession (actual/de facto vs. paper/de jure)
  • Vesting of surplus land
  • Panchnama as mode of taking possession
  • Intra-court appeal
Read case analysis
Administrative law

STATE OF KERALA & ORS. versus MOUSHMI ANN JACOB

The Notification dated 25.02.2021 creates two distinct categories: (a) lands not exceeding 25 cents as on 30.12.2017 which may seek category change without fee, and (b) lands exceeding 25 cents for which conversion fee (10% of fair value, or 20% if over one acre) is payable; accordingly, where a holding exceeds 25 cents the conversion fee is payable on the entire extent of the land in ownership and not only on the portion exceeding 25 cents.

Source excerpt

  • Delegated legislation
  • Subordinate legislation
  • Conversion fee
  • Exemption notification
  • Interpretation
  • Article 14
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.