Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975

11 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

ANANT RAJ LTD. (FORMERLY M/S. ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES LTD.)versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2021 INSC 68027 October 2021Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the State of Haryana's practice of granting licences for group housing colonies on a "First Come First Serve" (FCFS) basis under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. The Court found that neither the public notice nor the Final Development Plan or the 2012 policy in

HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusABHISHEK GUPTA ETC.

2024 INSC 79621 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) sought to acquire 952.18 acres of land in Panchkula for a mixed‑use development, but the landowners objected under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming exemption for fruit trees and alleging that their structures were authorized. The High Court quashed th

NARINDER SINGH & ORS.versusDIVESH BHUTANI & ORS.

2022 INSC 73721 July 2022Disposed off

The case concerned several civil appeals and writ petitions challenging National Green Tribunal orders that restrained non‑forest activities on lands in three villages of Faridabad district, Haryana, on the ground that these lands were covered by special orders issued under Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act

DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. AND ANR.versusDIRECTOR, T & C. PLANNING HARYANA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 79319 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, DLF Universal Ltd. and another, were licensed under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 to develop residential colonies and entered into private agreements with plot and flat buyers that included clauses for extension fees and maintenance charges. The Director, Town and Count

DESH RAJ & ORS.versusROHTASH SINGH

2022 INSC 127914 December 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, joint owners of a 23‑kanal property, entered into two sale agreements with the respondent, requiring the sale deed to be executed by 16‑08‑2004 and making earnest money forfeitable if the deadline was missed. The respondent paid part of the consideration as earnest money but failed to appear for executi

UDDAR GAGAN PROPERTIES LTD.versusSANT SINGH & ORS.

2016 INSC 42513 May 2016Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a land‑acquisition case where the Haryana Urban Development Authority had notified acquisition of land for a public purpose, but a private builder, Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd., entered into agreements with farmers after the notification and obtained licences and release orders to develop a co

RAMESHWAR & OTHERSversusSTATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

2018 INSC 22712 March 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The Haryana Government issued a notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire land for an industrial township, after which many landholders sold their land to private builders at inflated prices. The State later dropped the acquisition on 24 August 2007 and again on 29 January 2010, allegedly to benefit

M.C. MEHTAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2018 INSC 80411 September 2018IA disposed

The Supreme Court examined whether land in Kant Enclave, notified under the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLP) on 18 August 1992, should be treated as forest land and thus subject to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It held that the notification unequivocally designates the area as forest, rendering any constructio

DLF LIMITEDversusMANMOHAN LOWE AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 82010 December 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The apartment owners of Silver Oaks Apartments filed a writ petition seeking to quash DLF Limited's declaration under the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, alleging that the declaration omitted certain community and commercial facilities as "common areas and facilities". The High Court held that the owners were entitled

ASHISH SETHversusSUMIT MITTAL AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 5859 October 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court dealt with a contempt petition filed by the Seth Group against the Mittal Group arising from a joint‑venture dispute over land development, license renewal and EDC liabilities. Both parties had executed a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) on 4 May 2015, which the Court incorporated into its order disposi

OKHLA ENCLAVE PLOT HOLDERS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 11103 October 2019Directions issued

The Okhla Enclave Plot Holders’ Welfare Association filed a writ petition alleging that the Colonizer (Durga Builders Pvt Ltd) failed to honour the terms of the plot‑allotment agreement and that many allottees had not paid the development charges required by the Supreme Court. The Court referred four questions to the a

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search