Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999

21 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

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

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

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

K.NARENDRAversusRIVIERA APARTMENTS (P) LTD.

1999 INSC 26524 May 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, K. Narendra, entered into a 1972 agreement to sell a 4,000 sq m plot to Riviera Apartments (P) Ltd for Rs 8,97,740, contingent on the buyer obtaining various governmental sanctions for a multi‑storey project. The buyer failed to secure the required approvals, part of the land was later declared excess un

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

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

SRI S.N. WADIYAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRversusCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KARNATAKA

2015 INSC 68221 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the legal representative of the late S.N. Wadiyar, challenged the valuation of vacant land appurtenant to Bangalore Palace for wealth tax purposes. The Wealth Tax Officer had valued the land at market rates, ignoring the restrictions imposed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1962, which lim

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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