Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

States Reorganisation Act, 1956

39 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

AHMED HUSSAIN KHANversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1984 INSC 18528 September 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Ahmed Hussain Khan and S. Gopalan, were senior civil servants who had joined the Hyderabad State service before its merger with India and later transferred to Andhra Pradesh. Their pension was governed by Rule 299(b) of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules, which originally stipulated a maximum pension of

SALABUDDIN MOHAMED YUNUSversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1984 INSC 18628 September 1984Appeal(s) allowed

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 pension to Rs 857.15 per

RAJEEV MANKOTIAversusTHE SECRETARY TO THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA AND ORS.

1997 INSC 33427 March 1997Disposed off

The petitioner, Rajeev Mankotia, filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking protection of the Viceregal Lodge in Shimla as an ancient monument of national importance, opposing the Union Government's plan to convert it into a tourist hotel. The Court examined the definition of "ancient monument" and the duties of th

MULLAPERIYAR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FORUMversusUNION OF INDIA

2006 INSC 12727 February 2006Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition filed by the Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum seeking to set aside the 1886 lease agreement and related provisions, and to prevent the raising of the Mullaperiyar Dam water level beyond 136 ft. The Court held that Section 108 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956,

MOTOR GENERAL TRADERS & ANR. ETC ETC.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. ETC. ETC.

1983 INSC 16326 October 1983Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of clause (b) of Section 32 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, which exempted all buildings constructed on or after 26 August 1957 from the Act's rent‑control provisions. Petitioners argued that after more than two decades the e

DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

2015 INSC 26526 March 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The Customs and Central Excise Department created a separate Data Entry Operator cadre to implement computerisation, later merging it back with the original ministerial cadre under the TA Rules, 2003 and STA Rules, 2003. This merger altered the inter‑se seniority of officers, disadvantaging those who remained in the mi

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusNARAYAN SHAMRAO PURANIK AND OTHERS

1982 INSC 7825 October 1982Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra sought to establish a permanent bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, but pending central approval, the Chief Justice issued an order under s.51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, appointing Aurangabad as a place where Judges and Division Courts may also sit. The High Court stru

K.M.S. UBAIDA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

1998 INSC 15525 March 1998Dismissed

The appellants challenged a decision that land under systematic teak plantation was classified as private forest under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. They argued that clause (c) of Section 2(2)(1)(c) exempts lands principally cultivated with any agricultural crop, and that teak plantatio

PANKAJAKSHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERSversusCHANDRIKA & OTHERS

2016 INSC 21225 February 2016Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 23 of the Travancore‑Cochin High Court Act, which provides that a Chief Justice must refer a matter to a third judge when two judges of a division bench disagree, survives the repealing provision of Section 9 of the Kerala High Court Act and whether it is a special provision t

PIONEER RUBBER PLANTATION NILAMBUR, KERALA STATE ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

1992 INSC 21624 August 1992Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of tea, rubber and cardamom estates in Kerala, sought exemption under Section 2(f)(1)(i)(B) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 for lands used to grow fire‑wood trees for fuel in estate factories, smoke‑houses and for workers' domestic use. The Kerala High Court held

VALLIAMMA CHAMPAKA PILLAIversusSIVATHANU PILLAI AND ORS.

1979 INSC 15824 August 1979Dismissed

The appellant, a granddaughter of a non‑redeeming co‑mortgagor, sued for partition and possession of her one‑half share of mortgaged property that had been fully redeemed by the father of the respondents between 1913‑1918. The trial court held the suit was not barred by limitation, but the High Court reversed, applying

FEDERATION OF BAR ASSOCIATIONS IN KARNATAKAversusUNION OF INDIA

2000 INSC 35024 July 2000Dismissed

The Federation of Bar Associations in Karnataka filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a permanent bench of the Karnataka High Court in northern Karnataka, arguing that the long distance from Bangalore made access to justice costly and time‑consuming. The Chief Justice of the Karnataka High

S.P. DUBEYversusM.P.S.R.T. CORPN. AND ANR.

1990 INSC 32223 October 1990Appeal(s) allowed

S.P. Dubey joined a private transport company in 1947 where the superannuation age was 60. The company was taken over by the Madhya Pradesh Government on 31 August 1955 with a notification assuring that existing staff would not be adversely affected in their terms of service. When the staff were transferred to the Madh

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusB.V. THIMMAPPA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1993 INSC 27123 August 1993Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether government servants in Karnataka who were promoted to higher posts during the period allowed for passing the Service and Kannada Language Examinations, but failed to pass those exams, could be reverted to their earlier posts. The Court held that Section 4 of the Karnataka Services Exa

HARBHAJAN SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

2022 INSC 98920 September 2022Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014, which created a separate statutory body to manage Sikh gurdwaras in Haryana. The Court held that Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Inter‑State Corporation Act, 1957 are merel

P.V. HEMALATHAversusKATTAMKANDI PUTHIYA MALIACKAL SAHEEDA AND ANR.

2002 INSC 28120 May 2002Dismissed After

The petitioners sought specific performance of a contract for two cinema theatres in Calicut, but the trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, a two‑judge Division Bench of the Kerala High Court delivered conflicting judgments and, without identifying any point of law difference, confirmed the trial court decree unde

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.versusKESHAO VISHWANATH SONONE & ANR.

2020 INSC 71518 December 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Bombay High Court entertained four writ petitions filed by members of the Gowari community seeking declaration that they belong to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) ‘Gond Gowari’ and quashed the ST certificates issued to them. The High Court held that the tribe ‘Gond Gowari’ was extinct before 1911 and that the caste ‘Gowar

SUDHAKAR VITHAL KUMBHAREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 64018 November 2003Case Partly allowed

Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare, a resident of Madhya Pradesh belonging to the Halba tribe, was promoted to Assistant Engineer in the Maharashtra State Electricity Board under a reserved post. The Board later reverted him to Junior Engineer, arguing that he was not entitled to reservation benefits in Maharashtra. The Supreme

T.R. KAPUR & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

1986 INSC 27017 December 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners, diploma‑holding engineers appointed in the erstwhile Punjab Service, were promoted to Sub‑Divisional Officer in Class II and were eligible for promotion to Executive Engineer in Class I under the unamended Rule 6(b) of the Punjab Service of Engineers (Class I) Rules, 1964. The Haryana Government issued

SMT. J. S. RUKMANI ETC.versusGOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

1984 INSC 19517 October 1984Case Allowed

The widows of former Madras State government servants who retired before the 1956 reorganisation sought family pension under the Tamil Nadu Notification of 26 May 1979. The Tamil Nadu Government later issued a clarification (G.O. MS/63, 18 March 1982) that denied pension where the servant’s last posting was in a territ

STATE OF U. P. & ORS.versusNEERAJ CHAUBEY & ORS.

2010 INSC 61916 September 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a writ petition filed by Dr. Neeraj Chaubey challenging an advertisement for an Assistant Professor position that required seven years of experience instead of the statutory five years. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, instead of listing the petition, issued directions concerni

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARYversusSTATE OF T. N. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY [DIPAK MISRA, CJI] 829 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARYSTATE OF TAMIL NADU BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.

2018 INSC 15316 February 2018Disposed off

The Supreme Court adjudicated appeals against the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's 2007 award allocating waters of the inter-State river Cauvery among Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry. The Court upheld the Tribunal's adoption of the principle of equitable apportionment as recognized in international rules

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATIONversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2000 INSC 60615 December 2000Dismissed

The President, under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, established a permanent bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur and defined its territorial jurisdiction over eleven districts, while retaining a discretionary power to transfer cases to the principal seat at Jodhpur. The Acting Chief Justice later issued an

GOLLALESHWAR DEV AND ORS.versusGANGAWWA KDM SHANTAYYA MATH & ORS.

1985 INSC 23115 October 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned an ancient temple registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. After trustees terminated the services of two licensees who refused to vacate temple premises, the trustees filed suits for declaration of title and possession. Earlier suits were dismissed for lack of written con

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusAMAR NATH BANSAL

1997 INSC 3215 January 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Amar Nath Bansal, originally a civilian clerk in the Jind State Civil Service (1943), later served in the merged state of PEPSU, then Punjab, and finally Haryana. The Jind Service Regulations of 1945 fixed the retirement age at 62, but after the formation of PEPSU the Raj Pramukh issued Ordinances No. 1 and No. 16 of 2

BHAGAT RAM SHARMAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS

1987 INSC 33213 November 1987Dismissed

Bhagat Ram Sharma, a former member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly and later a member of the Punjab State Public Service Commission (PSPC) who retired in 1959, sought pension benefits under Punjab PSPC Regulation 8(3) and under the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Allowances & Pension of Members) Act, 1971. Th

STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHERversusNILGIRI TEA ESTATES LTD.

1987 INSC 27812 October 1987Dismissed

The State of Kerala sought to have eucalyptus plantations in a tea estate declared private forest under Section 2(f) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, so that the land would vest in the Government. The respondent, Nilgiri Tea Estates Ltd., argued that the trees were planted solely as fue

S.R. BHAGWAT AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MYSORE

1995 INSC 55912 September 1995Case Allowed

The petitioners, senior civil servants allotted to the State of Mysore, obtained deemed promotion dates and related financial benefits from a final High Court mandamus. The State subsequently enacted the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973, whose Section 11(2) and certain

STATE OF JHARKHANDversusBHADEY MUNDA & ANR.

2014 INSC 100310 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents, who were Functional Managers in the erstwhile State of Bihar, were recommended for promotion to General Manager/Deputy Director by a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 15 February 1999. After the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 bifurcated Bihar and created the State of Jharkhand, the respondents

RAM BADAN RAI AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1998 INSC 4179 November 1998Dismissed

The appellants, claiming to be original residents of villages on the Bihar‑Uttar Pradesh border, challenged the validity of the Bihar and Uttar Pradesh (Alteration of Boundaries) Act, 1968, arguing that state boundaries were frozen as of 26‑January‑1950 and that the disputed lands were never transferred. The Supreme Co

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.versusCHANDRAKANT ANANT KULKARNI & ORS.

1981 INSC 1628 September 1981Appeal(s) allowed

After the reorganisation of states under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Assistant Sales Tax Officers (ASTOs) from the former States of Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad were allocated to the new State of Bombay, where there were no comparable posts. The State Government issued several resolutions altering seniority an

BAL PATIL AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 3428 August 2005Disposed off

The petitioners, representing a section of the Jain community, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Central Government to notify Jains as a minority under section 2(c) of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992, based on a recommendation of the National Commission. The High Court dismissed the peti

COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARDversusC.MUDDAIAH

2007 INSC 9007 September 2007Dismissed

C. Muddaiah, a former First Division Assistant of the Karnataka Housing Board, challenged the Board's seniority list and obtained a judgment from a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court directing that his seniority be placed above respondents 2‑34 and that he be granted all consequential benefits. The Board appealed

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.

2014 INSC 3737 May 2014Decided Case

The case concerns the Mullaperiyar dam, a masonry dam built on the Periyar River in Kerala but owned and operated by Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu filed a suit under Article 131 of the Constitution seeking to enforce its rights under the 1886 lease agreement and to raise the dam’s full reservoir level (FRL) to 142 ft, as prev

A. RAJAversusD. KUMAR

2025 INSC 6296 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, A. Raja, contested and won the Devikulam Assembly seat, a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes, by filing a nomination stating he belonged to the Hindu Parayan caste, supported by a caste certificate. The respondent challenged the election, alleging that the appellant's paternal grandparents migrat

DEAN, GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAMBOLIM, GOA AND ANR.versusDR. SUDHIR KUMAR SOLANKI AND ANR.

2001 INSC 4223 September 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The Dean of Goa Medical College appealed against a Bombay High Court order that had held the ten‑year residency requirement in Rule III(1)(iii) of the Goa Rules 1998 to be merely directory, thereby allowing Dr. Sudhir Kumar Solanki to be considered for admission to a postgraduate medical course. The Supreme Court exami

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