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
Housing

OKHLA ENCLAVE PLOT HOLDERS WEL. ASON versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.

The Court referred specified pending and later applications to the Special Committee where appropriate, modified the earlier order to permit certain general-category allottees (disqualified earlier for multiple-family claims) to participate in further scrutiny, directed remaining allottees who had not submitted to scrutiny to appear before the Scrutiny Committee within four weeks, and issued mandatory directions to the State of Haryana to demarcate plots, prepare a fresh layout within 10 weeks, remove encroachments, commence scrutiny of commercial claimants, and implement the Special Committe…

Source excerpt

  • Residential colony allotment
  • Allottee grievance redressal
  • Special committee scrutiny and procedure
  • Demarcation and layout planning
  • Eligibility criteria for allotment (ews/npnl/general)
  • Demarcation and development charges
Read case analysis
Land acquisition

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

Because the respondents' acquisition, voluntary surrender, possession, final notifications and deposit of compensation were completed before 27.11.2002, the Amended Incentive Rules (effective 27.11.2002) did not apply and the entitlement is to be determined with reference to the position as of completion; accordingly the allotments already made stand confirmed and no further allotment is due.

Source excerpt

  • Incentive scheme for voluntary surrender of land
  • Allotment of sites
  • Applicability of amended rules
Read case analysis
Urban development

RESIDENT’S WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER versus THE UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

In view of Rule 14 of the 1960 Rules, Rule 16 of the 2007 Rules and the repeal of the Chandigarh Apartment Rules, 2001, fragmentation/division/bifurcation/apartmentalization of a residential unit in Phase-I of Chandigarh is prohibited; the Heritage Committee must first consider any proposal for redensification in Phase-I, after which the Chandigarh Administration may consider amendments to CMP-2031 and the Chandigarh Building Rules (Urban), 2017 in accordance with the Heritage Committee's recommendations and place such amendments before the Central Government for decision; until the Central G…

Source excerpt

  • Redensification
  • Fragmentation
  • Apartmentalization
  • Master plan (cmp-2031)
  • Building rules
  • Article 142 directions
Read case analysis
Urban development

VIKAS SINGH versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS

In view of the Master Plan amendment and the Unified Building Bye-Laws, a residential building up to 17.5 metres including stilt parking is not to be treated as a high-rise/multi-storeyed building; therefore mandatory Delhi Fire Service clearance applicable to high-rise buildings is not required as a precondition for sanction of the appellant's revised building plan of 16.6 metres (including stilt); SDMC must decide the application within timelines in the Unified Building Bye-Laws and cannot refuse or withhold sanction solely on the ground of non-compliance with high-rise fire requirements.

Source excerpt

  • Building plan sanction
  • Master plan amendment
  • Fire safety clearance
  • Interpretation of subordinate rules
  • Definition of high-rise building
  • Timelines for statutory approvals
Read case analysis
Building regulations

SUPERTECH LIMITED versus EMERALD COURT OWNER RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that both the second revised plan (26 Nov 2009) and the third revised plan (2 Mar 2012) and the construction of T-16 and T-17 violated applicable building regulations (NBR 2006, NBR 2010) and NBC 2005 because the required minimum spacing/open spaces were not maintained (distance between T-1 and T-17 was only 9 m whereas applicable norms required much greater spacing including 16 m and, by note, 20.45 m); the 'building block' and 'dead end' exceptions were rejected on the facts; the third revised plan also violated provisions protecting undivided interests and required c…

Source excerpt

  • Minimum distance between buildings
  • Applicability of nbr 2006 and nbr 2010
  • Application of nbc 2005
  • Consent of flat owners/undivided interest
  • Demolition of illegal construction
  • Collusion between developer and planning authority
Read case analysis
Urban development

ANJUMAN E SHIATE ALI & ANR. versus GULMOHAR AREA SOCIETIES WELFARE GROUP & ORS. ETC.

The two sub-plots shown and approved as open spaces/gardens in the 1967 layout must be maintained as such and cannot be used for construction; the 1999 development plan does not alter or divest the reserved status, and MHADA's order directing lease/registration for construction was erroneous.

Source excerpt

  • Layout approval
  • Open space reservation
  • Development plan vs approved layout
  • Interpretation of dcr and mmc act provisions
Read case analysis
Urban development

SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Deemed permission for construction beyond plinth level under DCR Regulation 6(4) accrued to the appellant in view of valid notice served and absence of refusal by the authority. The construction of the PPL and main residential building was as per sanctioned plan and not illegal. The subsequent circular restricting PPL floors could not operate retrospectively or amend the Regulation. Determination of refuge area by the competent authority is not open to further challenge. Partial relief granted to appellants; High Court's order on deemed permission is set aside in part.

Source excerpt

  • Development control regulations
  • Commencement certificate
  • Public parking lot (ppl) construction
  • Incentive fsi
  • Deemed permission
  • Regularisation of building construction
Read case analysis
Urban development

OKHLA ENCLAVE PLOT HOLDERS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

The Court directed that members of the petitioner association who bought plots from the Colonizer are entitled to the land as per the approved layout; the Colonizer’s claim to any portion of the land can be considered by the Arbitrator only if the Colonizer pays outstanding licence renewal fee of Rs.21,86,97,901 (as on 28.02.2019) with interest @6% from 28.02.2019 and reimburses amounts spent by DTCP on watch and ward (about Rs.1.25 crores) and other charges; DTCP produced estimates that internal and external development works require Rs.117,00,00,000 plus 10% contingency (total Rs.128,70,00,…

Source excerpt

  • Colonization licences
  • Development charges
  • Licence renewal fee
  • Apportionment of development costs
  • Encroachment
  • Density norms
Read case analysis
Urban development

M.C. MEHTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Court directed implementation of area parking measures and pilot projects to address parking shortages, ordered municipal authorities and the Delhi Cantonment Board to clear pavement encroachments (with 15 days' notice and recovery of removal costs as arrears of land revenue and consideration of discontinuing municipal services to repeat encroachers), directed notification and enforcement of the Delhi Maintenance and Management of Parking Places Rules, 2019 (draft) by specified dates, required the Govt. of NCT to ensure 25-year parking needs assessments before granting building permission…

Source excerpt

  • Parking policy
  • Pilot project for parking
  • Public transport
  • Encroachment clearance
  • Municipal rule-making
  • Rfid and parking guidance systems
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.