Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973

15 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

SHRIPAL BHATI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2020 INSC 10229 January 2020Dismissed

The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) appointed respondent No.4 as Project Engineer (Electrical) on deputation from the U.P. Power Corporation in February 2014 and later absorbed him in May 2015. The appellants, who were Assistant Project Engineers, challenged the appointment and absorption, arguing th

M.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD.versusRADHEY SHAYAM SAHU AND OTHERS

1999 INSC 28826 July 1999Dismissed

The Lucknow Nagar Mahapalika entered into a one‑sided agreement with M.I. Builders to construct an underground shopping complex on Jhandewala Park, a historic public park, without inviting tenders or obtaining required statutory approvals. The High Court held the agreement illegal, arbitrary and violative of the U.P. M

BARELLLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusVRINDA GUJARATI AND ORS.

2004 INSC 13226 February 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The Bareilly Development Authority (BDA) ran a self‑financing housing scheme in which the brochure stated only an estimated cost of flats, with final costing to be determined later. After construction was altered from four storeys to two, the BDA raised the price of the flats based on actual increased area, land cost a

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC.versusSMT. MALTI KAUL AND ANR. ETC.

1996 INSC 92021 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 empowers a development authority to levy a development fee on applicants for plan sanction. The High Court had held that no such power existed, but the Supreme Court read Sections 14, 33, 41, 56 and related provisions as confe

MOHAN KARANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

1998 INSC 14418 March 1998Dismissed

Mohan Karan, an Assistant Architect who was promoted to Executive Officer (RBO) on 7 February 1983, challenged the promotion of the second respondent to Chief Town Planner on the ground that he was senior in the feeding cadre. The High Court dismissed the writ, holding that the appellant's post was not a cadre post und

BAREILLY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.versusAJAI PAL SINGH & ORS.

1989 INSC 6417 February 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The Bareilly Development Authority (BDA) advertised housing units with estimated costs and reserved the right to alter terms in its brochure. Applicants registered, paid deposits, and later received notices that the cost and instalment rates were substantially increased. Most applicants gave written consent to the revi

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.versusSRI VIKRAM CHAUDHARY AND ORS.

1995 INSC 40114 July 1995Disposed off

The Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) engaged several workers on daily‑wage contracts for its development projects. The workers filed a writ petition seeking regularisation of their services and parity in pay with regular employees. The Allahabad High Court single judge denied regularisation but directed the GDA to

STATE OF U.P. ETC.versusSMT. PISTA DEVI & ORS.

1986 INSC 18812 September 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh and the Meerut Development Authority sought to acquire about 412 acres of arable land on the outskirts of Meerut for a housing scheme, invoking section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to dispense with the inquiry under section 5‑A. A notification was issued on 29 April 1980, b

M/S. SHEIKHAR HOTELS GULMOHAR ENCLVE. & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2008 INSC 63712 May 2008Dismissed

The Uttar Pradesh government acquired land for a "Transport Nagar" project to alleviate traffic congestion in the National Capital Region. Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it invoked Section 17(4) read with Section 5-A, dispensing with the requirement that affected persons file objections under Section 5-A. M/s Sh

NOIDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSOCIATIONversusNOIDA & ORS.

2011 INSC 3669 May 2011Disposed off

The Noida Entrepreneurs Association filed a writ petition alleging that the former CEO of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), Shri Ravi Mathur, IAS, misused his position between 1993-94 by awarding contracts without tender, evading conversion charges, and illegally converting a 13‑hectare city park

HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PVT. LTDversusRITU MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA)

2021 INSC 1709 March 2021Disposed off

The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) allotted hotel plots for the 2010 Commonwealth Games, which were later cancelled and the matter litigated. The Supreme Court, in its 2011 judgment, allowed the allottees to continue their leases by paying a higher premium of Rs.70,000 per square metre. The petition

BHAGAT SINGH ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1998 INSC 4658 December 1998Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh acquired 7.334 hectares of land in Agra for a fruits and vegetables market yard, invoking Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to dispense with the Section 5‑A inquiry on the ground of urgency, despite a one‑year gap between the notification and the declaration. The land owners cha

R.K. MITTAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

2011 INSC 8365 December 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority could allow banks, nursing homes and other commercial activities in plots designated as residential under the Master Plan, lease deeds and the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. The appellants had let their residential plot to a

MANOHAR LAL (D) BY LRS.versusUGRASEN (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

2010 INSC 3413 June 2010Disposed off

The case concerned allotments of land acquired under the 1894 Land Acquisition Act and the applicability of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. The State Government, acting as a revisional authority, directed the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) to allot land to both Manohar Lal and Ugrasen

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