Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976

11 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

JAI NARAIN PARASRAMPURIA (DEAD) AND ORS.versusPUSHPA DEVI SARAF AND ORS.

2006 INSC 55224 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The promoters of a proposed company purchased a house and land before incorporation and later transferred the title to the incorporated company, which was declared the owner by a decree. The promoters, acting as directors, subsequently entered into a sale agreement with the appellants and also leased the property, lead

V.R. SUDHAKARA RAO AND ORS.versusT.V. KAMESWARI

2007 INSC 43418 April 2007Dismissed

The case involved two related suits concerning a plot of land: one for recovery of possession and a permanent injunction, and another for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement of sale. The plaintiff claimed the defendants had constructed a compound wall on his plot, while the defendants asserted that an ora

AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusNAWAB KHAN GULAB KHAN AND ORS.

1996 INSC 118911 October 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation sought to remove unauthorised hutments erected by pavement‑dwellers on a main road. The High Court stayed the removal until suitable accommodation was provided and required a hearing. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that pavements are public property intended for free pedestrian mo

S. KESARI HANUMAN GOUDversusANJUM JEHAN & ORS.

2013 INSC 23310 April 2013Disposed off

The appellant, S. Kesari Hanuman Goud, filed a suit for specific performance of a 1977 agreement to sell land, asserting that he was always ready and willing to fulfil his part of the contract. The respondent, Anjum Jehan, contended that the appellant lacked the financial capacity and therefore was not ready, subsequen

JAYANTILAL INVESTMENTSversusMADHUVIHAR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AND ORS.

2007 INSC 2610 January 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Jayantilal Investments, a promoter, was sued by MadhuVihar Co‑operative Housing Society for conveyance of title and an injunction restraining further construction on a plot in Kandivali. The Society argued that under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA) the promoter must obtain flat‑takers' consent for any additi

NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.versusSITARAM MILLS LTD. & ORS. ETC.

1986 INSC 614 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the surplus lands owned by Shree Sitaram Mills formed part of the "assets in relation to the textile undertaking" under sub‑section (2) of section 3 of the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983. The mill, a sick textile undertaking, had been disposing of surplus l

GANPATBHAI MAHIJIBHAI SOLANKIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2008 INSC 3034 March 2008Dismissed

The appellants, original owners of land declared surplus under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976, challenged the allotment of that land to weaker sections. An earlier appeal against the surplus declaration was dismissed in 1988, but the appellants later filed another appeal in 1995, suppressing the fact of the 1988 orde

GWALIOR SUGAR CO. LTD. & ANR.versusANIL GUPTA AND ORS.

2012 INSC 5062 November 2012Appeal(s) allowed

Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd., a private limited company, was granted 215 bighas of land in 1941-42 for setting up a sugar factory, with pattas prohibiting agricultural use. Facing financial difficulties, the company sold about 9 bighas of surplus land, leading to a public interest litigation alleging violation of the patta c

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusKRISHNA GOPAL LAHOTI AND ORS.

2007 INSC 11272 November 2007Case Partly allowed

The Lucknow Development Authority acquired a large tract of land for a housing scheme and the Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed its market value at Rs.2.20 per sq. ft., later increased to Rs.6 per sq. ft. by the acquisition tribunal after considering sale deeds of small plots. The landowners appealed, claiming the

INDU BHUSHANversusMUNNU LAL AND ANR.

2007 INSC 1022 February 2007Dismissed

Munna Lal filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of land, which was dismissed by the trial court. The appeal against the dismissal was allowed ex‑parte by the first appellate court, and the appellant sought to set aside the ex‑parte decree under Order XLI Rule 21 of the CPC. The appellant contende

CHANDA C. KADAM & ORS.versusADDITIONAL COLLECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY

2013 INSC 7421 November 2013Case Partly allowed

The petitioners, heirs of the deceased CG Kadam, entered into a 1992 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with developers, granting the developers rights to develop part of a 42,669.40 sq m plot while reserving a 37,865 sq ft floor‑space index (FSI) for the petitioners. The developers obtained a No‑Objection Certificate 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