Telangana High Court rules that land mutation rejections must be reasoned, setting aside cryptic orders under principles of natural justice and Article 14.
Rajasthan High Court directs authorities to comply with land acquisition award granting 25% developed land within three weeks, emphasizing timely execution of compensation.
Bombay High Court holds that Section 11 of MOFA only addresses promoter's failure to convey title; rival ownership claims must be resolved in civil court, not writ jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court holds that writ petitions cannot be used to re-litigate factual disputes over land consolidation schemes decades after certification.
Patna High Court holds that lease renewal under Bihar Government Estates (Khas Mahal) Manual requires strict compliance with lease terms and continuous possession.
Madras High Court directs revenue authorities to survey and demarcate land under Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 within 12 weeks, emphasizing statutory compliance.
Madras High Court holds that GST registration cancellation for non-filing due to genuine financial hardship must be remediable, not punitive, subject to compliance conditions.
Supreme Court holds that challenges to nomination rejection in Panchayat elections can only be raised via election petition under Article 243-O, barring writ jurisdiction.
Andhra Pradesh High Court directs state to release admitted dues of Rs. 46 lakhs for executed road construction work, holding delay violates constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21.
The Rajasthan High Court holds that challenges to land acquisition awards after 27 years are barred by delay and laches, affirming finality of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Kerala High Court clarifies when writ appeals lie against interim orders passed under Article 226, even if petitions invoke Article 227 jurisdiction. Key principles for SARFAESI Act proceedings.
Chhattisgarh High Court holds that suppression of material facts in writ petitions can lead to recall of orders, restoring the petition for fresh consideration.
Kerala High Court reaffirms that writ petitions under Article 226 against SARFAESI Act proceedings are maintainable only in exceptional circumstances, directing aggrieved parties to Debts Recovery Tribunal.
The Rajasthan High Court holds that gallantry promotion under Rule 28(a) is discretionary, not a vested right, and delay bars writ relief under Article 226.
Bombay High Court holds that an unregistered agreement for sale with a condition precedent of state permission does not constitute a transfer under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.