Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
3 judgments · newest first · showing 1–3
The petitioners, Uma Devi and two others, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Urban Ceiling authority that rejected their representation to have land entries restored in their names. They alleged that notices required under Sections 10(5) and 10(6) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and …
The petitioners, heirs of the late Tungal, claimed continuous possession of land in Village Manak Mau, asserting that they never received notices under Sections 8(3), 10(1), 10(5) or 10(6) of the U.P. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1976, and that the State’s vesting order of 1981 was …
The petitioners, claiming two‑thirds share in several plots, sought to have proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 quashed and the revenue entries restored, invoking Section 3 of the Repeal Act, 1999. The land had been declared surplus, vested in the State, and …
