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

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
Land law

HARNEK SINGH versus FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, APPEALS, PUNJAB AND ORS.

Surplus land declared under the PEPSU Act, where possession was not taken prior to the commencement of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, does not vest in the State Government; the landowner's rights continue, and any allotment to third parties without vesting and possession is illegal and void.

Source excerpt

  • Vesting of surplus land
  • Punjab land reforms act, 1972
  • Pepsu tenancy agricultural lands act, 1955
  • Allotment of surplus land
  • Possession requirement for vesting
Read case analysis
Land law

RAM SWARUP AND OTHERS versus S.N. MAIRA AND OTHERS

Section 12(3) of Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 operates retrospectively from 23rd December 1972; surplus land vested with State on that date, and allottees' rights could not be taken away without hearing them; High Court erred in not considering retrospective effect and in passing order without impleading allottees.

Source excerpt

  • Vesting of surplus land
  • Retrospective legislation
  • Principles of natural justice
  • Allotment rights
Read case analysis
Land law

AMAR SINGH AND ORS. versus AJMER SINGH AND ORS.

Surplus proceedings finalised under the Punjab Act in 1961/1962 cannot be reopened under the Haryana Act; surplus land so declared stands vested in the State from the appointed day regardless of subsequent possession or utilisation.

Source excerpt

  • Ceiling on land holdings
  • Vesting of surplus land
  • Reopening surplus proceedings
Read case analysis
Land law

SMT. BHAGWANTI DEVI AND ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR .

Exemptions under Rule 8 of Punjab Act became void on appointed day via Section 32 of Haryana Act; surplus lands vested in State under Section 12(3); ceiling authorities have no power under Haryana Act to reopen proceedings finalized under Punjab Act; surplus area in pending proceedings determined under Punjab Act, surplus vests and utilized by State as per provisions of Haryana Act.

Source excerpt

  • Surplus land determination
  • Exemption withdrawal
  • Vesting of surplus land
  • Reopening of proceedings
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.