RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OR$. ETC
2015 INSC 53229 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, landowners in five villages of Raipur district, challenged the Kamal Vihar Township Development Scheme (KVTDS) prepared by the Raipur Development Authority (RDA) under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Thatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. They alleged that the scheme was formulated without the required zonal plan…
MOHANDAS AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
2020 INSC 10529 January 2020Dismissed
The appellants, owners of several plots in Gondia, challenged the reservation of their land for a shopping complex and vegetable market under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The original Development Plan came into force on 24‑08‑1984, and a declaration under Section 126(4) was published on 03‑09‑1…
DAHYABHAI RANCHHODDAS DHOBI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
2010 INSC 42123 July 2010Dismissed
The appellants, owners of a parcel of land in Surat, challenged the State of Gujarat's acquisition of the land for a primary school, alleging procedural defects under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They claimed no hearing under Section 5A, no locality publication under Section 6(2), the award under Section 11A was bey…
HER HIGHNESS MAHARANI SHANTIDEVI P. GAIKWADversusSAVJIBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL AND ORS.
2001 INSC 15721 March 2001
The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the original defendant to develop dwelling units for weaker sections under Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, but possession of the land was never transferred and the agreement contained a clause allowing unilateral termination before possession…
PALITANA SUGAR MILLS PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusSMT. VILASINIBEN RAMACHANDRAN AND ORS.
2007 INSC 31920 March 2007Disposed off
Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. filed a contempt petition against the State Government of Gujarat and its officers for refusing to implement the Supreme Court's 15 October 2004 order granting non‑agricultural (residential) permission over certain government lands. The petitioners alleged that the respondents deliberatel…
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)versusAHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2022 INSC 111219 October 2022Disposed off
The Supreme Court interpreted the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which defines 'charitable purpose' for entities advancing 'any other object of general public utility' (GPU). The Court held that a GPU charity cannot engage in trade, commerce, or business, or provide services in relation thereto, …
AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSHARAD KUMAR JAYANTIKUMAR PASAWALLA & ORS.
1992 INSC 16515 May 1992Dismissed
The Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) levied a development fee on property owners under Sections 119(1) and 119(2)(c) of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. The petitioners challenged the levy, arguing that the statute did not expressly empower AUDA to impose such a fee, that there was…
BHIKHUBHAI VITHLABHAI PATEL & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
2008 INSC 36714 March 2008Case Allowed
The appellants' land, originally earmarked for residential use in a draft development plan prepared by the Surat Urban Development Authority, was later reserved for South Gujarat University. After the university failed to acquire the land, the State Government re‑reserved the land for the same educational purpose, a re…
AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusMANILAL GORDHANDAS AND ORS.
1996 INSC 103611 September 1996Appeal(s) allowed
The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation submitted a revised development plan under the Bombay Town Planning Act in January 1976. The Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 came into force on 30 January 1978, repealing the Bombay Act and establishing the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA) with power…
MRUGENDRA INDRAVADAN MEHTA AND OTHERSversusAHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
2024 INSC 40110 May 2024Dismissed
The plaintiffs sued the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation seeking either compensation for the loss of 974 square metres of land or, alternatively, an allotment of land of that size in any town planning scheme. The trial court granted the alternative relief of land allotment but rejected the compensation claim, prompting …
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.versusAHMEDABAD GREEN BELT KHEDUT MANDAL & ORS.
2014 INSC 3829 May 2014Disposed off
The Gujarat government prepared a development plan in 1987 reserving a "green belt" for public housing. After ten years the reservation lapsed under Section 20 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. The Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority later framed a town‑planning scheme reserving the same l…
N. NANALAL KIKLAWALA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
2005 INSC 5467 November 2005Case Partly allowed
The appellants sought a writ of mandamus directing the Nagarpalika to implement a town planning scheme that had been sanctioned under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976. The High Court Single Judge granted the direction, but the Division Bench set it aside on the ground that a variation of the sc…
MOHANLAL NANABHAI CHOKSI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
2010 INSC 6684 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, owners of land in Surat, challenged the acquisition of their property for a vegetable market initiated by the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) under Section 78 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949. They argued that the later Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1963, a special …
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITYversusPALITANA SUGAR MILL PVT, LTD. AND ORS.
2002 INSC 5053 December 2002Dismissed
The State of Gujarat reserved land for public purposes under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and published a final development plan on 3 March 1986. The ten‑year period for acquisition expired on 2 March 1996, but a draft revised plan was issued on 20 February 1996. Landowners served notices u…
BABULAL BADRIPRASAD VARMAversusSURAT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
2008 INSC 5742 May 2008Dismissed
The appellant, a tenant of a plot acquired for a road‑widening scheme, challenged the final allotment of re‑allotted plots on the ground that he had not been served a special notice as required by Sections 52 and 53 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act. The Court held that Rule 26 of the Gujarat Town …