Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976

78 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2014 INSC 6830 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Godrej & Boyce acquired a 133-acre parcel in Vikhroli, which was declared waste land and cultivated before 1951. The State later issued a show‑cause notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (notice No. WT/53) in 1956‑57, but never served it or took possession, while repeatedly granting building permiss

M/S. ROYAL ORCHID HOTELS LIMITED AND ANOTHERversusG. JAYARAM REDDY AND ORS.

2011 INSC 72629 September 2011Dismissed

The Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation acquired 37 acres of land for a golf‑cum‑hotel resort under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but later transferred portions of the land to private entities. Several landowners challenged the acquisition, alleging fraud and diversion of public purpose. The High Court, a

VINAYAK KASHINATH SHILKARversusDY. COLLECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

2012 INSC 11829 February 2012Appeal(s) allowed

Vinayak Kashinath Shilkar filed a writ petition seeking declaration that proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 concerning his land in Thane were abated after the Repeal Act of 1999 was adopted in Maharashtra on 29‑11‑2007. He contended that, although the land had vested in the State under

A. K. LAKSHMIPATHY (DEAD) & ORS.versusRAI SAHEB PANNALAL H. LAHOTI CHARITABLE TRUST & ORS.

2009 INSC 120428 October 2009Case Partly allowed

The appellants entered into a contract to purchase a trust property, agreeing to pay an advance and the balance by a stipulated date, with a clause stating that time was the essence of the contract. They later demanded that the respondents obtain clearance from the Endowment Department under the Urban Land (Ceiling and

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSAURABH JAIN AND ORS.

2007 INSC 99028 September 2007Disposed off

The Moradabad Development Authority (MDA) appealed a High Court order that directed it to return surplus land to respondents Saurabh Jain and others and to pay compensation. The land had been declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in 1977, but a 1998 revision by the State Government he

VIPINCHANDRA VADILAL BAVISHI (D) BY LRS. AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 10228 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, land‑holders of plots 36‑43 in Survey No. 71, challenged the State of Gujarat's claim that their land had vested in the State under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, on the basis of a handwritten corrigendum and a panchnama. The Supreme Court examined whether such a corrigendum could re

STATE OF ASSAMversusBHASKAR JYOTI SARMA & ORS. ETC.

2014 INSC 81827 November 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Assam claimed that surplus land, declared under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, had been vested in the government after possession was taken in December 1991, and that the later repeal of the 1976 Act by the 1999 Repeal Act did not affect that vesting. The heirs of the original owner cha

LOKPRAKASHAN LTD.versusKANCHANBHAI KANBHAI TADVI AND ORS.

2009 INSC 108227 August 2009Appeal(s) allowed

Lokprakashan Ltd., a newspaper, applied to Baroda Municipal Corporation for 5,000 sq. m of land. The corporation’s Standing Committee approved the sale, and the Gujarat State Government granted an exemption under section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. After paying Rs 50 lakhs and receiving a p

M/S A.P. ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATIONversusTHE TAHSILDAR & ORS. ETC.

2025 INSC 27427 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation, owned a large parcel of land in Hyderabad that was declared excess under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The State issued a notice under section 10(5) on 5 January 2008, affixed it on 8 January, and after alleged non‑compliance issued an order und

G. MANIKYAMMA & OTHERSversusROUDRI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & OTHERS

2014 INSC 103225 November 2014Disposed off

The case concerned a dispute over 25 acres of land in Hyderabad that had been declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Roudri Co‑operative Housing Society claimed purchase of the land, while hut‑dwellers (encroachers) occupied part of it. The State Human Rights Commission ordered the en

SMT. DAROTHI CLARE PARREIRA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 79025 July 1996Dismissed

The appellants, former owners of surplus urban land in Pune, were deemed to possess excess land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. After objections were rejected, a notification under Section 10(3) was published vesting the surplus land in the State, before the appellants' applications under Secti

RAIZUR REHMAN KHAN AND ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1996 INSC 122024 October 1996Dismissed

The appellant, a family waqf (Waqf Alai Aulad) created before May 1, 1959, sought exemption from land‑ceiling provisions on the ground that its income was used for charitable and religious purposes as well as for the welfare of the settler’s family. The claim was made under clause (f) of Section 6(1) of the U.P. Imposi

STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.versusSAKHI BEWA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

2021 INSC 77523 November 2021Case Allowed

The State of Orissa appealed a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court judgment that had set aside orders declaring 0.865-7 acres of land as excess vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, on the ground that the Act had been repealed and compensation had not been paid. The High Court had als

BEGULLA BAPI RAJU ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC. ETC.

1983 INSC 10223 August 1983

The Supreme Court examined several Special Leave Petitions challenging the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The petitioners argued that a separated minor son should not be treated as a member of the family unit, that land transferred by such sons before the Act should not be cou

SH. BRIJ MOHAN SURI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusTHE DISTT. JUDGE, KANPUR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 11723 January 1996Granted

The appellant, the legal heir of the deceased owner of three plots in Kanpur, challenged the computation of excess urban land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The plots comprised a dwelling unit on 501.64 sq m and two industrial factories on larger plots. The authorities declared the appellant h

STATE OF M.P.versusGHISILAL

2021 INSC 76322 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh took possession of 16,000.32 square metres of land in Bhopal that had been declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and allotted it to the Bhopal Development Authority for housing the poor. The heir of the original owner filed a civil suit seeking a declarati

SMT. MEERA GUPTAversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

1991 INSC 26522 October 1991Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Smt. Meera Gupta, purchased a vacant plot from Smt. Probhavati Poddar, the predecessor-in-interest, after obtaining a decree for specific performance. The predecessor owned a built‑up property (constructed before the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976) and a vacant plot, and the competent auth

THE GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESHversusH.E.H., THE NIZAM, HYDERABAD.

1996 INSC 42622 March 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh appealed a judgment that had awarded compensation for urban land of the Nizam acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land lay within the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and had been declared excess under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, which deemed such land v

RITESH TEWARI & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2010 INSC 62921 September 2010Dismissed

The original landholders, whose holdings exceeded the ceiling under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, were assessed as surplus and transferred a major portion of the land to Mayur Sahkari Awas Samiti in 1982. The Act deemed such surplus land vested in the State, but the authorities never took physical

BAI DOSABAIversusMATHURDAS GOVINDDAS AND 0RS.

1980 INSC 9121 April 1980Dismissed

Bai Dosabhai, who had received two plots of land as a gift, executed a deed of lease in 1946 granting the lessee (Indu Prasad Dev Shankar Bhatt and successors) a right to purchase the land within seven years for a stipulated price, with provisions for rent, default, and sale by public auction. After repeated notices fo

HER HIGHNESS MAHARANI SHANTIDEVI P. GAIKWADversusSAVJIBHAI HARIBHAI PATEL AND ORS.

2001 INSC 15721 March 2001

The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the original defendant to develop dwelling units for weaker sections under Section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, but possession of the land was never transferred and the agreement contained a clause allowing unilateral termination before possession

P. PURUSHOTTAM REDDY AND ANR.versusM/S PRATAP STEELS LTD.

2002 INSC 3821 January 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants (vendors) entered into a sale agreement with the respondent (buyer) for Rs.40.25 lakh, conditioning the sale on obtaining clearance under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 by a stipulated date. When the clearance was not obtained, the vendors cancelled the agreement and refunded part of t

GANGA RETREAT AND TOWERS LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

2003 INSC 74119 December 2003Dismissed

The appellants, Ganga Retreat and Towers Ltd., bought a prime property at a public auction on the basis that it was free‑hold, ceiling‑free and had a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.0. After paying the full consideration, they obtained possession and applied for building‑plan approval, but the municipal bye‑laws were amend

KUNJ BEHARI LAL BUTAIL AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.

2000 INSC 8818 February 2000

The Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 exempts tea estates from its provisions. Under Section 26 the State Government framed rules in 1973, and in 1986 added a proviso to Rule 3 prohibiting transfer of land subservient to tea plantations without government permission. A 1990 circular further directed r

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSURENDRA KUMAR AND ANR.

1995 INSC 5318 January 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The owner of a plot in Jabalpur applied to the competent authority for permission to alienate 16,500 sq ft of land with building to a purchaser. The authority exercised its option under Section 27(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 to purchase the property on behalf of the State, and the owner exec

U.A. BASHEER THR. G.P.A. HOLDERversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

2021 INSC 9517 February 2021Disposed off

The case concerned a joint family property in Ullal village that was declared excess land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The appellant claimed to have purchased a portion of the land in 1994 from a family member and sought restoration of his name in the land records under the Repeal Act, 1999,

SAFIYA BEEversusMOHD. VAJAHATH HUSSAIN ALIAS FASI

2010 INSC 89216 December 2010Appeal(s) allowed

Safiya Bee purchased a house and its adjoining vacant land by a registered sale deed, but the respondent forcibly occupied the property. She filed an application under Section 7‑A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 before the Special Tribunal seeking possession of the house and the appurtenant

AZIZIA BEE @ SHAIK MUJEEB (D) THR. LRS.versusGOVT. OF A.P. & ORS.

2017 INSC 74916 August 2017Disposed off

The petitioners claimed ownership of land in Survey No. 129/45/D, Hyderabad, based on a 1961 compromise decree and a 1962 sale deed in favour of their mother. The State Government had recommended issuance of supplementary sethwars for this parcel. The land had been caught up in urban land ceiling proceedings, but both

STATE OF A.P.versusV. VENKATASWARA RAO (DEAD) BY LR.

2004 INSC 3816 January 2004Dismissed

The respondent, V. Venkateswara Rao, held vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and obtained a 33‑year lease of the land before the prohibition on alienation of vacant land took effect. The State Government granted an exemption under Section 20(1)(a) of the A

BHARAT KARSONDAS THAKKARversusM/S. KIRAN CONSTRUCTION CO. AND ORS.

2009 INSC 82915 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The case arose from a long‑standing dispute over leasehold lands originally granted to Sowar Ramji Vaity. After a series of agreements, the respondent Kiran Construction Co. (Respondent No.1) sought to enforce a 1982 injunction restraining the Vaity family and others from dealing with the properties, despite having no

SMT. ATIA MOHAMMADI BEGUMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

1993 INSC 8715 March 1993Appeal(s) allowed

Atia Mohammad Begum owned vacant land in Aligarh that was entered in revenue records as agricultural before the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came into force on 17‑02‑1976. The competent authority declared the land to be in excess of the ceiling limit, but the District Judge reduced the excess area to 6

I.R. COELHO (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC.versusTHE STATE OF TAMIL NADU ETC.

1999 INSC 39414 September 1999Matter referred to larger bench

The petitioners challenged the insertion of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 and the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 into the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution after they had been struck down as unconstitutional. The issue was whether such post‑1973 insertions, p

GAJANAN KAMLYA PATILversusADDL. COLLECTOR & COMP. AUTH. & ORS.

2014 INSC 9914 February 2014Appeal(s) allowed

Gajanan Kamlya Patil, a landowner, was served a notice under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 demanding surrender of possession of his land, with a threat of force if he failed to comply. The notice was issued after the Act had been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) R

MAHARAO SAHIB SRI BHIM SINGHJI ETC. ETCversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1980 INSC 21913 November 1980Dismissed

The petitioners, owners of vacant urban land, challenged the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 on grounds that several provisions violated Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution and the basic structure doctrine. The Court examined the artificial definition of "family" in s.2(f), the compensatio

STATE OF U.P. & ANRversusEHSAN & ANR

2023 INSC 90613 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The original landholder owned 7,499.20 sq m in Saharanpur, of which 5,499.20 sq m was declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in 1977 and vested in the State through notifications in 1978‑79. The State claimed it had taken actual possession of the surplus land in March 1979, while the l

GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD.versusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

2022 INSC 95313 September 2022Disposed off

The case concerned a lease of 540 acres of land granted by the Sri Udasin Mutt, a charitable religious institution, to Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. The State of Telangana sought eviction on the ground that the land is agricultural and, under Section 82 of the Telangana Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endow

A.P. HOUSING BOARDversusMOHAMMED SADATULLAH AND ORS.

2007 INSC 41613 April 2007Disposed off

The Andhra Pradesh Housing Board acquired 45 acres for a housing scheme, but could take possession of only 43 acres; the remaining two acres remained occupied by hut dwellers and compensation was never paid. The land‑owners obtained a writ from the High Court declaring the acquisition award for the two acres a nullity

M/S TOMORROWLAND LIMITEDversusHOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 20713 February 2025Disposed off

M/s Tomorrowland Limited, the highest bidder for a 5‑star hotel site, paid the first instalment but argued that HUDCO (Housing and Urban Development Corporation) was obliged to obtain statutory approvals and execute a sub‑lease before demanding further payments. HUDCO failed to secure the necessary approvals and a perp

STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. ETC.versusPARSHOTTAMDAS RAMDAS PATEL & ORS.

1987 INSC 33112 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The Gujarat government issued a notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire lands for municipal employee housing. After the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULCRA) came into force, the landowners filed statements under ULCRA claiming the lands were in excess of the ceiling limit and sough

GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS.versusJ. SRIDEVI AND ORS.

2002 INSC 19712 April 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents purchased parcels of land that were agricultural on the appointed day of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and later converted them to residential use after a master plan amendment. They applied to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority for layout approval, which was conditioned on a

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.versusM. KRISHNA VENI AND ORS.

2006 INSC 50711 August 2006Disposed off

The original owner of 119 acres filed a joint declaration under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for himself, his wife and three sons, while two daughters filed separate declarations claiming land allotted to them under a family "Pasupu Kumkuma" arrangement. The competent authority prepared a draft sta

STATE OF U.P.versusHARI RAM

2013 INSC 14611 March 2013Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed against a High Court order that allowed landowner Hari Ram to claim the benefit of the saving clause in the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. The dispute centered on whether the "deemed vesting" of surplus vacant land under section 10(3) of the Urban Land (Ceiling

NATWARBHAI MAGAINBHAI PATELversusCOLLECTOR AND ORS.

1996 INSC 66410 May 1996Dismissed

Natwarbhai Magajnbhai Patel filed a Special Leave Petition challenging a Gujarat High Court order that vested excess vacant land, surrendered under Section 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, in the State. The petitioner argued that compensation should be paid before the government could utilize

M/S. KEWAL COURT PVT. LTD. AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

2023 INSC 8849 October 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The Supreme Court examined the meaning of “vacant land” under Section 2(q) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, focusing on sub‑clause (i) and the conflict between the earlier Johnson two‑judge decision and the later Billimoria three‑judge decision. The appellants argued that land on which construction

TUMATI VENKAISH ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1980 INSC 1169 May 1980Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined challenges to the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (as amended in 1977) on the ground that, after the Parliament enacted the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 under Article 252, the State law became void for being outside the legislature's c

S.N. RAO & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1988 INSC 389 February 1988Dismissed

The case concerned a parcel of land in Bandra, Bombay, originally shown as residential in the 1966 development plan, for which a developer sought permission to build a five‑star hotel. The Municipal Commissioner rejected the plan, citing a pending revision of the development plan that would earmark the land as a green

LALA JEETMAL KAPOOR TRUSTversusSTATE OF UITAR PRADESH AND ANR.

1992 INSC 3328 December 1992Disposed off

The Lala Jeetmal Kapoor Trust, which owned 2071.10 sq. metres of vacant land in Kanpur, was notified for acquisition under the Kanpur Southern City Extension Scheme. The Trust objected, claiming that the layout had been sanctioned, that provisions for roads and a public park were included, and that it had filed an appl

VOLTAS LIMITEDversusTEHSILDAR, THANE & ORS.

2012 INSC 5118 November 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Maharashtra government acquired land for Voltas Ltd. and issued an allotment order in 1969 restricting alienation without prior permission and mandating use for workers' housing. Voltas later obtained an exemption under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, to develop surplus land for a weaker‑section

OMPRAKASH VERMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

2010 INSC 6918 October 2010Dismissed

The appellants challenged the validity of the State's allocation of land in Survey No. 83 under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, arguing that the land was agricultural and that the earlier High Court judgments declaring the proceedings void should stand. The Supreme Court examined whether the doctrine

RATTAN LAL (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVESversusS.N. BHALLA & ORS.

2012 INSC 3238 August 2012Disposed off

The appellant purchased a plot in 1978 and paid Rs.50,000 as earnest money. The vendors were contractually obliged to obtain sale permission and an Income Tax clearance, but failed to do so within six months, invoking Clause 9 to terminate the agreement and refunding the earnest money. The appellant protested the refun

T.R. THANDURversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 4908 April 1996Disposed off

The petitioner booked a flat in a building constructed on excess vacant land that had been exempted under Section 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The promoter refused to transfer the flat and the land share, citing a Karnataka High Court order based on the Supreme Court’s decision in S. V

MAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN & ORS.versusM/S VISWESWARA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. & ORS.

2025 INSC 6467 May 2025Disposed off

The dispute concerned 53 acres of land in Survey No.83/2, claimed by the original owners (appellants) and by M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. (respondents) who relied on sale agreements dated 19 March 1982 that were never registered. The appellants argued that the unregistered agreements could not convey title an

A.V. PAPAYYA SASTRY AND ORS.versusGOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ORS.

2007 INSC 2467 March 2007Dismissed

The appellants, land owners, had declared under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 that their land was not surplus because it was already in the possession of the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. The competent authority accepted this and declared them non‑surplus. Subsequent land‑acquisition proceedings were in

STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusPRAVIN JETHALAL KAMDAR (DEAD) BY LRS.

2000 INSC 1247 March 2000Dismissed

The plaintiff, the legal heirs of the deceased Pravin Jethalal Kamdar, had entered into a sale agreement for his urban land within the ceiling limit and applied for permission under Section 27(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The competent authority rejected the application and exercised its pre

SOLIDAIRE INDIA LTD.versusFAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 767 February 2001Dismissed

Solidaire India Ltd. had taken three loans from Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. and claimed that the agreed interest rate was 18% per annum. The Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions and Securities) Act, 1992, awarded interest at 21.5% and 23% respectively, which the appellant contested. The appe

KAPILABEN AMBALAL PATEL & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

2020 INSC 3866 May 2020Dismissed

The appellants, legal representatives of the original landowner, challenged the State's forcible possession of surplus land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, which was effected by a Possession Panchnama on 20 March 1986. After a series of applications, exemptions, and a partially successful writ

DALSUKHBHAI BACHUBHAI SATASIA & OTHERSversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS

2026 INSC 216 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were sub‑plot owners of a 9,303 sq m parcel in Surat that had been declared excess land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act). The State issued a notice under s.10(5) of the ULC Act only to the original landowner, not to the appellants who were in actual possession, and subseq

NARGIS JAL HARADHVALAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 66 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Nargis Jal Haradhvala, obtained a Section 20 exemption under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for a parcel of land in Mumbai, with an initial condition to surrender 30% of the permissible floor space to government‑nominated allottees. A 1990 government corrigendum modified this to 20% of

SHRI SAURAV JAIN & ANR.versusM/S A. B. P. DESIGN & ANR.

2021 INSC 3845 August 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The first respondent claimed to be the transferable owner of a parcel of land and sued to declare the Moradabad Development Authority's (MDA) auction of that land illegal and to restrain dispossession. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding MDA was the lawful owner; the High Court reversed, declaring the auction v

STATE OF GUJARAT & ANOTHERversusMANOHARSINHJI PRADYUMANSINHJI JADEJA

2012 INSC 5644 December 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat and the Mamlatdar sought to enforce the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1960 against Manoharsinhji Pradyumansinhji Jadeja, whose 587 acres of land were declared surplus. Jadeja contended that the lands were "urban land" under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and therefore o

STATE OF GUJARATversusM/S. ARVIND MILLS AND ORS.

2002 INSC 5164 December 2002Dismissed

The State of Gujarat challenged the validity of the proviso to Rule 81(2) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, 1972 (as amended 1977), which imposed double land‑revenue rates on lands in urban agglomerations covered by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, if the land was not put to the non‑agricultural use

STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS,versusSRI PRONAB KR. SUR AND ORS.

2003 INSC 2174 April 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The State of West Bengal appealed against a Calcutta High Court order that granted exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and confirmed the sale of a sick company's excess land to a third party, despite pending winding‑up proceedings under the Companies Act, 1956. The Supreme Co

KRISHNA BHIMRAO DESHPANDEversusLAND TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD AND ORS.

1992 INSC 3023 November 1992Dismissed

The petitioners, owners of lands in the Hubli‑Dharwad urban agglomeration, challenged the Land Tribunal’s order granting occupancy rights to tenants under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, arguing that the lands fell within the scope of the Central Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and that the State Act shou

SULOCHANA CHANDRAKANT GALANDEversusPUNE MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT AND ORS.

2010 INSC 4663 August 2010Dismissed

The appellant, Sulochana Chandrakant Galande, challenged the acquisition of her land by the State under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, arguing that the land was not within urban limits at the Act's commencement and that the later repeal of the Act should invalidate the acquisition. The Supreme Court

NEELAGANGABAI AND ANR.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

1990 INSC 1813 May 1990Dismissed

The appellants owned land that was acquired by the Hubli Dharwar Municipal Corporation for its own purposes. A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made to a civil court for determination of compensation, but the court proceeded without serving notice to the corporation as required by Sectio

THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.versusGRACE SATHYAVATHY SHASHIKANT & ORS.

2019 INSC 11081 October 2019

The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others challenged the allotment of a parcel of land (Survey No. 129/45/D) to Andhra Prabha Publications under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. A Single Judge ordered a survey to determine the true identity of the land; the High Court set aside that order, but the S

MADHUSUDAN BHANUPRASAD PANDYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2019 INSC 8531 August 2019Dismissed

Madhusudan Bhanuprasad Pandya, who operated a cement pipe manufacturing business on leasehold land in Ahmedabad, applied for exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The State Government rejected the application, and the High Court dismissed his writ petition, holding that the la

M/S P.R. DEB AND ASSOCIATESversusSUNANDA ROY

1996 INSC 3471 March 1996Disposed off

The appellant, owner of a plot in South Calcutta, entered into a sale agreement with the respondent for Rs 9 lakhs, requiring an initial payment of Rs 25,000 and a further Rs 4 lakhs within five months, the latter being essential for the appellant to obtain alternative accommodation. The respondent failed to pay the Rs

ASHARFI DEVI (D) THR. LRS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2019 INSC 1241 February 2019Dismissed

The original appellant, owner of land subject to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, claimed that ceiling proceedings became void after the Act was repealed in 1999 and filed a writ petition in 2002. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ on 14 March 2008, finding the appellant could not prove posse

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