Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
14 judgments · newest first · showing 1–14
The Mizo Chief Council filed a writ petition under Article 32 on behalf of tribal chieftains alleging that the State had acquired their traditional lands without paying due compensation, violating their fundamental right to property. The petition was filed in 2014, more than six decades after the …
The petitioner, Renu Devi, filed a writ petition seeking the removal of illegal structures erected on her Rayati/Khatiyani land and compensation for the unlawful possession by state authorities. She alleged that despite a representation dated 15-11-2025, the District Magistrate failed to act, …
The appellants purchased residential plots in Bengaluru between 1995 and 1997, which were later acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) under a preliminary notification dated 29 January 2003. Although possession was taken in 2005, no compensation award was made until a …
The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether, under its Article 142 powers, it could issue blanket directions that all interim stays granted by High Courts should automatically lapse after six months and that High Courts must dispose of such cases on a day‑to‑day basis. The Court examined the …
Vidya Devi, an illiterate widow, had her 3.34‑hectare land taken by the Himachal Pradesh State in 1967‑68 for a road without any acquisition proceeding or compensation. The State later initiated acquisition only for neighbouring owners, leaving her claim unaddressed. Vidya filed a writ petition …
The petitioners, Glanrock Estate Ltd., challenged the validity of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 (the Janmam Act) after it was placed in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution (Thirty‑fourth Amendment) Act, 1974. They argued that the Act violated …
The Society of St. Joseph's College, a religious minority educational institution, owned a building that the State sought to acquire under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The college filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a declaration that Article 30(1A) of the Constitution bars the …
The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notice under Section 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, to acquire the Upper Jamuna Valley Electricity Supply Company's undertaking upon expiry of a 35‑year licence in 1964. In 1975 the Uttar Pradesh government amended Sections 6 and 7‑A of the Act, replacing …
The petitioners, former rulers of Indian princely states, challenged the Constitution (Twenty‑sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 which repealed Articles 291 and 362 and amended Article 366(22), thereby abolishing privy purses and royal privileges. They argued that the amendment violated the basic structure …
Assam Sillimanite Ltd., a public company that owned a refractory plant, challenged the Assam Sillimanite Ltd. (Acquisition & Transfer of Refractory Plant) Act, 1976 which vested the plant in the Central Government and fixed a payment of Rs 1,07,17,000. The company argued that the amount was …
The Bihar Government enacted Ordinances and later the Bihar Private Educational Institutions (Take Over) Act, 1987 to nationalise private educational institutions in phases, selecting the Lalit Narayan Mishra Institute as the first institution. The Institute (as a society) and its registrar, Dr. …
S.M. Yunus, a former civil servant of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad who retired in 1956, claimed a pension of Rs 1,000 per month in Indian currency, arguing that his right had vested at retirement. The Andhra Pradesh Government had, by a 1971 notification, retrospectively reduced the maximum …
The petitioners, owners of land acquired under the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948, challenged two provisos in Section 7(1)(e) that fixed compensation based on the market value as of September 1, 1939 plus 40 percent, arguing that they violated Section 299(2) of the …
The petitioners, including A.K. Roy, challenged the National Security Ordinance, 1980 and the subsequent National Security Act, 1980 on grounds that the President's ordinance‑making power under Article 123 is an executive power and not "law" within the meaning of Article 21, that the provisions of …
