Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Haryana Municipal Act, 1973

12 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

NEERAJ KAPOORversusRANBIR SINGH DAHIYA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 32731 July 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned a 3‑sq‑yard municipal plot in Sonepat leased by the Municipal Committee to Prem Kumar Sardana, who sub‑let the ground floor to Janak Raj Kapoor (now the appellant) and the first floor to the first respondent. After the Haryana Government’s 1991 policy to grant direct leases to sub‑lessees, the fir

M/S KISHAN LAL LAKSHMI CHAND AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

1993 INSC 24929 July 1993Dismissed

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986, specifically sections 5(1) and 11, alleging that the 1% levy on agricultural produce was a tax in disguise and therefore ultra vires the State's legislative competence under Articles 246(3) and 286(2) of the Constitution.

JINDAL STRIPE LTD. AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 51626 September 2003

The petitioners, manufacturers in Haryana, challenged the constitutional validity of the Haryana Local Area Development Tax Act, 2000, alleging it violated Article 301 of the Constitution and was not saved by Article 304(b). They argued that the Act imposed an entry tax on goods moving into local areas, effectively a s

VIRENDRA GAUR AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

1994 INSC 55024 November 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Haryana Government could lease municipal land, earmarked as open space for sanitation and recreation, to the Punjab Samaj Sabha for a Dharamshala. The land had been vested in the municipality under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and was reserved under a town planning scheme for p

M/S. SEPAL HOTEL PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

2014 INSC 30922 April 2014Disposed off

The Municipal Committee framed a Town Planning Scheme in 1975 that required part of Sepal Hotel's land for a road. The hotel owner was served notice to demolish the boundary wall, leading to multiple writ petitions and civil suits. The High Court held the scheme final, but the Supreme Court’s decision in Yogender Pal d

SUNIL KUMAR RANAversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 56519 December 2002Dismissed

Sunil Kumar Rana filed a nomination for a municipal council seat, but his nomination was rejected because he had more than two living children, a disqualification under Section 13A of the Haryana Municipal Act as amended in 1994. The amendment introduced a proviso that a person with more than two children would not be

YOGENDRA PAL AND OTHERSversusMUNICIPALITY, BHATINDA AND ANR.

1994 INSC 26115 July 1994Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the validity of Sections 192(1)(c) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and 203(1)(c) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, which allowed municipal committees to transfer land for town‑planning schemes without payment of compensation or with discretionary compensation. Petitioners whose land had b

BIHARI LAL RADAversusANIL JAIN (TINU) & ORS.

2009 INSC 18113 February 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Bihari Lal Rada, was elected President of the Hisar Municipal Council, but the election was set aside by the High Court on the ground that the post was reserved for the general category and only councilors elected from unreserved wards could contest. The Supreme Court examined whether the Haryana Municip

ZILE SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 5857 October 2004Leave Granted & Dismissed

Zile Singh, a sitting municipal member, was held disqualified under Section 13A(1)(c) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 after the birth of his third child in August 1995. The disqualification arose from the First Amendment (1994) which barred persons with more than two living children, but its proviso contained a draf

THE STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF HARYANAversusJAI SINGH & ORS.

2022 INSC 4007 April 2022Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 (the Amending Act) which amended the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The issues centered on whether the amendment amounted to an acquisition of land without compensation, whether it fell within the protection of Arti

FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATIONversusM/S IRON MASTER INDIA (P) LTD.

2017 INSC 2047 March 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The municipal corporation (Faridabad Complex Administration) appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court of Punjab and Haryana's dismissal of its second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The corporation sought to overturn a decree that had upheld a suit filed by MIS Iron Master Ind

JYOTI NAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATIONversusAMIR CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ANR.

2022 INSC 13206 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The Jyoti Nagar Welfare Association filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the Municipality of Thanesar from disturbing its possession of land that had been reserved for a public park under Town Planning Scheme No. 5, sanctioned under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. The trial court granted the injuncti

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