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
Constitutional law

JANHIT MANCH THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT BHAGVANJI RAIYANI & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had examined the matter in detail and issued all feasible directions, and that the issues raised were primarily matters of policy and local governance, which are not for the Supreme Court to review unless there is patent illegality or constitutional contravention—neither of which was present. Therefore, no interference was warranted with the High Court’s decision.

Source excerpt

  • Slum rehabilitation scheme
  • Transferable development rights (tdr) policy
  • Development control regulations (dcr)
  • Separation of powers
  • Judicial review of policy
  • Urban planning
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

JANHIT MANCH & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

The issues raised in PIL No.17 of 2017 are intimately connected with those pending in SLP(C) CC Nos.13527-13528 of 2016 and SLP(C) Nos.10704-10705 of 2016; in the interests of justice and efficiency, the PIL should be transferred to the Supreme Court to be heard along with related SLPs, enabling final determination of public safety and regulatory concerns. Interim orders of Bombay High Court are not interfered with at this stage but parties may seek their modification before the Supreme Court.

Source excerpt

  • Transfer of proceedings
  • Development control regulations
  • Floor space index (fsi)
  • Public interest litigation
  • Refuge area norms
Read case analysis
Administrative law

ITC LTD. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Cancellation of completed lease deeds by NOIDA was unsustainable as no breach of lease conditions or statutory regulations by allottees was alleged; only irregularities by officers of NOIDA were cited, which are not grounds for cancellation under s.14 of the Act. The Court affirmed that the allotments and leases are valid unless allottees decline to pay revised premium rate; failure to pay gives rise to cancellation and refund with interest.

Source excerpt

  • Lease cancellation
  • Natural justice
  • Judicial review
  • Urban planning
  • Commercial property management
Read case analysis
Administrative law

BINABAI BHATE versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

Resolutions passed by the Committee are only advisory; the State Government retains absolute and final authority regarding development plan approval. Since the plan was approved without modification, statutory provisions requiring further suggestions or hearings do not apply; no violation of natural justice occurred. High Court correctly held no statutory power of review exists in the Act; sections 23 and 23A do not apply as no modification was made by the State Government.

Source excerpt

  • Development plans
  • Natural justice
  • Statutory review powers
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

AKHIL BHARTIYA UPBHOKTA CONGRESS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

Allotment of land to respondent No.5 was illegal as it was not preceded by advertisement nor invitation to other eligible entities, violating Article 14. Modification of the Bhopal Development Plan to facilitate the allotment was ultra vires Section 23-A of the MP Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, as the statutory purposes were not fulfilled. The process was arbitrary, favoring respondent No.5 without following established procedure.

Source excerpt

  • Allotment of government land
  • Discretionary powers
  • Equality under article 14
  • Ultra vires modification of development plans
Read case analysis
Property law

M/S. ROYAL PARASDISE HOTEL (P) LTD. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Unauthorized constructions erected in defiance of law and clear statutory directions under the Punjab Scheduled Road and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 cannot be regularized or compounded. Deliberate, reckless, or motivated violations must not be rewarded. The High Court was justified in refusing interference and denying regularization.

Source excerpt

  • Regularization of unauthorized construction
  • Controlled areas
  • Municipal law
  • Restriction of unregulated development
Read case analysis
Administrative law

U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD versus RAM KRISHNA AND ORS.

A housing or improvement scheme under the Adhiniyam is lawfully initiated only upon its notification under Section 28, not at the stage of framing under Section 16. Approval of the scheme by the State Government need not precede such notification; it may be granted subsequently, upon consideration of objections. Once granted, subsequent approval validates prior actions and the scheme, and the law does not require previous approval unless expressly stated. The exemption under Section 59, Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, as amended, includes schemes initiated after declaration…

Source excerpt

  • Approval of housing schemes
  • Interpretation of statutory requirements for sanction of scheme
  • Uttar pradesh avas evam vikas parishad adhiniyam, 1965 procedures
  • Effect of subsequent approval on previously notified schemes
Read case analysis
Land acquisition

JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus SITA RAM AND ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the view of the High Court—that framing of a scheme is a pre-condition for acquisition of land—is not a correct proposition of law, and an acquisition notification cannot be quashed on that ground.

Source excerpt

  • Requirement of framing scheme for land acquisition
  • Effect of repealed statutes on land acquisition proceedings
Read case analysis
Land acquisition

UMED INDUSTRIES AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Claimants are entitled to payment of solatium at 15% and interest at rates prescribed under the Central Amendment Act only from the commencement date (1-8-1987) on enhanced compensation, not for any period prior; actions prior to commencement are not affected by the amendment.

Source excerpt

  • Compensation for land acquisition
  • Transitory provisions
  • Interest and solatium under land acquisition laws
Read case analysis
Municipal law

STA TE OF WEST BENGAL ETC. versus TERRA FIRMA INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD.

A legislative ban of one year on sanctioning high-rise building plans was not unconstitutional. Mere submission of plans does not confer a vested right; only sanction does. The Amending Act neither exceeded statutory authority nor violated Article 14. Pending applications were rightly excluded from future decisions based on new rules.

Source excerpt

  • Validity of legislative ban
  • Building rules
  • Discrimination under article 14
  • Vested rights in submitted plans
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.