The 50 Most Important Indian Court Judgments Explained

#Case Name
1A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (The Habeas Corpus Case)
2Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab
3Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra
4Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
5BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India
6Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
7Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar
8Chief Forest Conservator (Wild Life) v. Nisar Khan
9D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
10Daniel Latifi v. Union of India
11Dr (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai
12Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council
13Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India
14Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India
15Forum, Prevention of Envn. and Sound Pollution v. Union of India
16Gaurav Jain v. Union of India
17Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar
18I.C. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab
19In re, Vinay Chandra Mishra
20In Re: Death of Sawinder Singh Grover
21Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
22Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
23L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
24Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India
25M/s Modi Cements Limited v. Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi
26M/s Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame
27Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D’costa
28Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
29Minerva Mills v. Union of India
30Mr. X v. Hospital Z
31Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani
32Narayan Prasad Lohia v. Nikunj Kumar Lohia
33Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
34Poonam Verma v. Dr. Ashwin Patel
35Parmanand Katara v. Union of India
36PUCL v. Union of India
37Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab
38Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra
39S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India
40Sakshi v. Union of India
41Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra
42Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty
43Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
44Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India
45Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement
46State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat
47State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
48Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration
49Vincent v. Union of India
50Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan

Back
Next

(26) M/s Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame, AIR 1990 SC 630

Facts in Brief

This Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court, challenging the permission granted to certain builders to escalate the rates in respect of construction permitted on exempted land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. The State of Maharashtra was considering the formulation of certain guidelines in respect of constructions over exempted lands covered under Section 20 of the Act.

Under the scheme of the Act, urban agglomerations were divided into four classes, and a ceiling was prescribed for each classification. Vacant land in excess of the ceiling under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act vested in the State by way of acquisition, and the vacant sites thus acquired by the State were intended to be utilised for purposes of housing; Sections 23 and 24 of the Act provided for the disposal of vacant land. The Act therefore purported to take away the excess land from its holders, and to utilise the same for purposes of housing and other public purposes.

Judgment

Considering the gravity of the situation at hand and the alleged mala fides, the Court directed that the genuineness of the claims be scrutinised by an efficient judicial officer, not below the rank of an Additional District Judge, in respect of the schemes undertaken in every agglomeration — and even those which the State Government may undertake in future.

The Court observed that in the event of the claims being found tenable, the builders would be directed to provide accommodation in terms of the scheme for those found to be acceptable. Further, in order to ensure implementation of the said direction, the builders were called upon not to make any commitment or allotments for flats until the claims of the 1,420 applicants were scrutinised, and allotment of accommodation for such number of persons as were found entitled had been provided.

For the Common Man

The Court in this case laid down measures to impress upon every committee that the fulfilment of the laudable purpose of providing a home to the poor and homeless depends upon its commitment to the goal, and that every effort should be made by it to ensure that the builder does not succeed in frustrating that purpose.


Back
Next