w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Tulsi Ram v/s Delhi Development Authority


Company & Directors' Information:- DEVELOPMENT CORPN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U13209WB1939PTC009750

    W.P.(C). No. 1720 of 2018, CM. Nos. 7144, 8852 & 24671 of 2018

    Decided On, 16 July 2018

    At, High Court of Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

    For the Petitioner: Kamlesh Kr. Mishra, Sanjay Baniwal, Advocates. For the Respondent: Rajiv Bansal, Sr. Advocate, Beenashaw Soni, Fiza Saluja, Advocates.



Judgment Text

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers-

'It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

I. Pass an order directing respondent DDA to not to disposes the petitioner herein from the possession of the land admeasuring 16 Bighas 00 Biswas in Khasra No. 341 Min IP Estate, New Delhi without following the due process of law.

II. Pass an order directing the respondent DDA to comply in letter and spirit the final order and judgment dated 19.04.2006 in WP (C) 14260 of 2004

III. Pass an order directing respondent DDA to comply to its own resolution No. 6 passed at an ordinary meeting of the Delhi Development Authority held on 30.04.1973 and grant direct lease to the petitioner herein;

IV. Pass an order directing Respondent to cease any further evictions or harassment of petitioner that been using the abovementioned area;

V. Pass an order directing the concerned respondent to compensate the petitioner for the loses been suffered by him due to illegal eviction proceedings;

VI. Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.'

2. The case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition is, that the land in question has been given on lease by the Government of India to one Pandit Kishan Chand, who in turn sublet the same to the Delhi Peasant Cooperative Multipurpose Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Society’) for the purpose of cultivation. The Society continued to pay lease money to Delhi Improvement Trust to whom the land has been handed over by the Government of India for the purpose of management and the Members of the Society continued to pay rent of the Society. It is also stated that the Society has been originally a direct tenant, however, after the incorporation of the Society, the petitioner as a Member was entitled to exercise his right over the land and was thus paying rent to the Society for his share of the land.

3. It is averred that immediately on receipt of the first show cause notice, the petitioner appeared and filed his objection stating that he is a poor person and with hard labour / efforts, has developed the barren land for agricultural purpose and earning the livelihood from the same and as such, he is not an unauthorized occupant. It is his case that on one hand the Government is regularizing the unauthorized colonies and squatters on Government land and on the other uprooting the poor farmers who are earning their livelihood by cultivation on the land in dispute. It is averred that even otherwise, after coming into force of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 the petitioner has a vested right in the land and the petitioner could not be evicted from the premises other than in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.

4. It is contended by Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a poor farmer having been cultivating the land and raising crops on the land of 16 Bighas 00 Biswas in Khasra No. 341 Min Inderpath Estate, New Delhi. In support of his submission, he has relied upon Khasra Girdawari at pages 34 to 37 of the paper book which are of the years 1989-2000. According to him, it was only in the year 2004, the DDA started using force against the cultivators, who through the Society had approached this Court. In substance, it is his submission that in terms of the Khasra Girdawari, the petitioner having been recognized as a cultivator, no action of eviction can be taken without due process of law. Mr. Mishra states, if as per the case of the DDA, the land has been handed over by the L&DO to the DDA in the year 2004, it is clear that for the period before that, the land was in possession of the L&DO and L&DO becomes a necessary party and the application for impleadment need to be allowed to enable this Court to know the exact position with regard to the land.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Bansal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent DDA submitted that the present petition is an abuse of the process of law, as the petitioner has filed fabricated documents, inasmuch as the Khasra Girdawari of various years on which reliance is being placed, does not form part of the record of the DDA. That apart, it was his submission, the petitioner is claiming his rights in respect of 16 Bighas 00 biswas in Khasra No. 341 Min Inderpath Estate, New Delhi, which land was transferred by L&DO to DDA on December 03, 2004. The land in question was situated in Zone 'O' of Yamuna river bed. As per the record of the land maintained by the respondent, the land is under the ownership of 'Sarkardaulatmadar' which would mean that the recorded owner of the land is the Government and presently under management of DDA. He stated, from time to time this Court had passed orders including in W.P.(C) No. 2112/2002 titled Wazirpur Bartan Nirmata Sangh v. UOI in the year 2003 itself for removal of all kinds of illegal persons/occupants from the Yamuna river bed. In compliance of various orders passed by Courts, the respondent has cleared the Yamuna river bed by conducting demolition drives from time to time to remove illegal / unauthorized occupants. However, some of the persons have been time and again attempting to encroach upon the Government land and the DDA from time to time keep on removing them. He would also refer to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated April 03, 2013 in W.P.(C) No. 2029/2012 titled Haq through its Member Abdul Shakeel v/s DDA and another, wherein the Division Bench has passed order of removal of unauthorized occupants.

6. It was the submission of Mr. Rajiv Bansal that the respondent has seven phase plan for the development of Yamuna River bed. The work of phase one is under process and the redevelopment plan is being executed in the southern part of river bed i.e the area which falls between old iron frame bridge to ITO bridge. The comprehensive plan of Zone 'O' is as per directions of the Principal Committee of NGT. The land under reference falls in the flood prone area of Yamuna river and get submerges in the river water at the time of flood. A perusal of the satellite images would show that there is no habitation on the river bed. Any temporary jhuggi/chhappar raised to keep a watch on crops and fertilizers/pesticides and other related items does not entitle them to remain in possession of river bed.

7. Mr. Rajiv Bansal has also pointed out to the Court that in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, a diametrically opposite stand has been taken as compared to the one taken in the writ petition, inasmuch as the petitioner is not a Member of the Society. According to him, the present petition needs to be dismissed on this ground only.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, first and foremost, with regard to the contradiction in the stand taken by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that he is a Member of the Society and he has been paying lagan to the said Society. Unfortunately, a diametrically opposite stand has been taken in the additional affidavit, inasmuch as, he is not a Member of the said Society. It appears, the same has been taken for the reasons that the Members of the Society have not succeeded in the litigation filed by them against their eviction.

9. Even otherwise, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the Khasra Girdawari at pages 34 to 37 alleged to have been issued from time to time between 1989 to 2000, interestingly, depicts at page 35, which is dated October 09, 1989, that the same has been issued by Patwari DDA. If the case of the respondent is that the land has been transferred by the L&DO to the DDA only in the year 2004, there was no reason why an Officer of the DDA would have issued the khasra girdawari in 1989. Be that as it may, it is the stand of the DDA as canvassed by Mr. Rajiv Bansal by relying on compilation of documents filed, to show that the DDA records does not show issuance of any Khasra Girdawari in favour of the petitioner, is appealing. Even otherwise, the litigation with regard to the Yamuna river bed was initiated in the year 2004, there was no reason for the petitioner not to be part of the said litigation. It is difficult to comprehend that no action has been taken by DDA for these number of years.

10. I agree with the submission of Mr. Bansal that, even though action has been taken against the petitioner but he re-surfaced on the land in question after some time. This I say so because from the perusal of the photographs placed on record by the parties, it is noted the structures in place are of tin / asbestos, and temporary in nature. Had the petitioner been occupying the land in question for more than four decades (as contended) then surely, the structures in which he is said to be residing would not be of tin sheds, but pakka structures, which is not the case. Even otherwise, the Khasra Girdawari, on which reliance is sought to be placed by the petitioner shows, the land as Sailaab, which is a water body, and as such the petitioner cannot be a cultivator in a pond. There is no dispute that the land in question is part of the Yamuna river bed. It is not the case of the petitioner he is the owner of the land and has a legal right thereto. Mr. Bansal during his submissions stated that the petitioner is the lone person who is occupying the land is appealing. Hence, it is a case of an encroachment, which is sought to be removed by the DDA, which they are under obligation to do. It must be borne in mind that there is no habitation on the land in question and therefore few tin sheds appear in the photographs filed with the petition are not for human habitation. Hence, no right accrue to the petitioner for holding on to the land. I find that the Division bench in the case of Haq through its Member Abdul Shakeel (supra), has rejected the writ petition with the following observations:

'5. Another important aspect in this regard is that according to the DDA, there is no habitation at all on the land in question and, therefore, there can be no question of rehabilitation of any person occupying the said land. We have perused the aerial images filed by DDA along with its reply as well as the photographs available on the file. It is quite clear f

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rom a perusal of these documents that the land in question is not being used for human habitation and is being used only for farming purposes. Few thatch huts appear in the photographs field with the petition, but they appear to be the huts put up for the purpose of safeguarding the crops and not for human habitation. That being the position, there can be no question of the respondents providing for rehabilitation of the persons who are in illegal occupation of the said land. Once the land in question is acquired, no one has a legal right to continue farming on the said land and any such activity by the encroachers would be per se illegal. We, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.' 11. The petitioner being similarly placed is also not entitled to any relief as being sought. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. CM No. 24671/2018 application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleadment In view of my aforesaid discussion, the application is rejected. CM Nos. 7144/2018 (for direction) & 8852/2018 (for direction) Dismissed as infructuous.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

24-06-2020 Barak Valley Hills Tribes Development Council, Assam Versus State of Assam & Others High Court of Gauhati
23-06-2020 Swetha Shri Selvakumar Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 P.S. Srinivas Rao Versus 60th Padubidri Grama Panchayath, Represented by its Panchayath Development Officer & Others High Court of Karnataka
18-06-2020 N. Krishnamoorthy Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
12-06-2020 Dr. D. Euvalingam & Others Versus The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 K. Shanthi Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 M/s SGS Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Bihar Urban Development Agency BUDA, Patna & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
01-06-2020 Padmavani Educational & Charitable Trust, Rep.by its Joint Managing Trustee, Salem Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Nagen Chandra Das & Others Versus The State of Assam, Rep. by the Comm. And Secy., Deptt. of Urban Development Deptt., Dispur & Others High Court of Gauhati
29-05-2020 N. Vijayakumary Versus The Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited, Registered Office Thrissur, Represented By Its Managing Director & Another High Court of Kerala
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2020 V. Srinivas Chowdary & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Gaddam Koteswaramma Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Ravipati Nagasarala & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
05-05-2020 Prabhu & Others Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Housing & Urban Development, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench At Dharwad
30-04-2020 Romesh Kumar Bajaj Versus Delhi Development Authority High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Delhi Development Authority & Others Versus Pushpa Lata & Others High Court of Delhi
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 P. Damodhar Versus The Telangana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited rep by its Joint Managing Director, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
17-04-2020 South Durban Community Environmental Alliance Versus MEC For Economic Development, Tourism And Environmental Affairs Kwazulu-Natal Provincial Government & Another Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
08-04-2020 Civilian Welfare & Development Trust (Regd.) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
04-04-2020 ABC Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Women & Child Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
20-03-2020 Prem Devi Versus Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Raj Kumar Versus Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan Near Ina Market New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 M/s. Rite Choice Foundations and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director, C.K. Sridhar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
12-03-2020 Nitin Kumar Jain Versus Union of India, Through, Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
11-03-2020 Jerome Velho Versus State of Goa, through the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
11-03-2020 S.S. Sundaresan Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
10-03-2020 V.S. Senthil Kumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Choda Bhutia & Others Versus State of Sikkim, Through the Secretary, Human Resources & Development Department Government of Sikkim & Others High Court of Sikkim
06-03-2020 Indore Development Authority Versus Manoharlal & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 V. Gurusamy Versus The Secretary to Government, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
06-03-2020 Om Prakash Swami Versus Haryana State Industrial And Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-03-2020 Ravindra Manik Shinde & Another Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 R. Praveen Versus The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 Madhya Pradesh Housing & Infrastructure Development Board & Another Versus Vijay Bodana & Others Supreme Court of India
03-03-2020 State of West Bengal Versus PAM Development Private Limited High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
03-03-2020 Abdul Salam & Others Versus Delhi Development Authority & Another High Court of Delhi
02-03-2020 Birru Prathap Reddy & Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
26-02-2020 Burdwan Development Authority & Others Versus Arifa Khatun & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
26-02-2020 Anil Dattatraya Girme & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Ministry of Urban Development, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-02-2020 The Administrator, City and Industrial Development Corporation [CIDCO] & Others Versus Padmakar & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-02-2020 M.P. Road Development Corporation Versus Jagannath & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
25-02-2020 R. Thenmozhi Versus The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing & Urban Development, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 Rajendra K. Bhutta Versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Another Supreme Court of India
19-02-2020 Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., R/by the Deputy Manager (Legal), Ernakulam Branch Versus R. Ranjith Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
18-02-2020 Banajit Deka Versus The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
18-02-2020 A. Ramesh, Trustee, Okkiam Thoraipakkam Vanniyakula Ksathriyar Welfare Temple Development Trust, Okkiam Thuraipakkam Village, Chennai Versus The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Kancheepuram & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-02-2020 Gram Panchayat Zinc Smelter, Panchayat Samiti Kurabad, District Udaipur Through Its Sarpanch Sarika Versus State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
13-02-2020 Narasimhan I.A.S. Educational & Charitable Trust, Rep. By its Managing Trustee N. Ranjit Versus The Member Secretary,Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 S. Sattanathan V/S State of Tamil Nadu, Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-02-2020 G. Thamaraiselvi Versus Secretary To Government, Union of India, (Department of Higher Education), Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-02-2020 Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd., Kolkata Versus Smita Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-02-2020 Ircon International Limited Versus C.R. Sons Builders & Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
11-02-2020 K. Devadass Versus State of Tamilnadu Rep by the Secretary to Government Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department Secretariat Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 M/s. Pacific Development Corporation Ltd. V/S South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
07-02-2020 Subramani Versus The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 K.M. Thamizharasu Versus The Commissioner of Rural Development Panagal Buildings Saidapet, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. Through its Authorized Signatory V/S Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range 12 New Delhi High Court of Delhi
04-02-2020 Mahendra Singh Thakur Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
04-02-2020 Vythiri Primary Co-operative Agricultural & Rural-Development Bank Ltd., Kalpetta P.O, Wayanad Versus T.V. Devasia Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
04-02-2020 Goa Industrial Development Corporation, through its Managing Director, Faizi O. Hashmi Versus Commissioner of Income Tax & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
03-02-2020 The Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department, rep. by the Divisional Engineer (H) Chennai Metropolitan Development Plan Division-1 Versus M/s. Jenefa Constructions, Civil Engineering Contractor, rep. by its Partner, M. Arunachalam High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 K. Chelladurai Versus The Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-01-2020 Santha Medical Foundation (a Public Charitable Trust), Rep. by its Chairman & Trustee Dr. S. Saravanan & Another Versus The Commissioner of Rural Development and Local Administration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-01-2020 Sanjay Singhal & Another Versus North Goa Planning & Development Authority, Through its Member Secretary & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
29-01-2020 A.P. Shareefa Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 The Nilamangai Nagar Welfare Association, (Rego.No.81/80) Rep. By its Secretary K.Sankararama Sarma, Chennai Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary, Housing and Urban Development (UDSRI) Dept., Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Vaikom Taluk Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Versus Anilkumar & Others High Court of Kerala
27-01-2020 M/s. Urban Umbrella Development And Management Company Through Its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory, Punjab V/S Pawan Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-01-2020 Krishna Pada Poddar Versus ABS Land Development and Construction Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Tapan Ghosh West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
27-01-2020 Desire Agro Resorts Development Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Pradip Kumar Halder West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
23-01-2020 Rawish Kumar Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Having it's office at Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
22-01-2020 Deepak Sharma Versus Jabalpur Development Authority & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh
21-01-2020 The Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Limited & Another Versus H.L. Kaveri & Others Supreme Court of India
20-01-2020 Dr. Johny Cyriac Versus The Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India, New Delhi, Represented by Its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
20-01-2020 Meerut Development Authority Meerut Versus M/s Civil Engineering Construction Corporation & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
20-01-2020 Bhubaneswar Development Authority Versus Sri Brahmananda Hota Supreme Court of India
20-01-2020 Deepsinh G. Rathod Versus District Development Officer & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
17-01-2020 Dr. Indira Pal & Another Versus Samar Nag, Managing Director, Bengal Shelter Housing Development Limited West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
16-01-2020 Pratima Choudhury & Another Versus Bengal Shelter Housing Development Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
13-01-2020 Narayan Sarkar & Another Versus The General Manager, Tripura Scheduled Caste Co-operative Development Corporation Ltd., West Tripura & Another Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Agartala
13-01-2020 C.N. Rajaram Versus Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing & Development Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 T.D. Sadasivam Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Housing & Urban Development, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Atul Kumar Singh Versus State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Govt of Bihar, Patna High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-01-2020 Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus Bindu Bansal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-01-2020 Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus Rajnish Gupta & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-01-2020 S. Meerabai Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-01-2020 Mukesh Gupta & Others Versus Delhi Development Authority High Court of Delhi
03-01-2020 M/s. Confluence Petroleum India Ltd., Represented by its Sales Manager N. Murugan Versus The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Housing & Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 V. Sreenivasagam Versus Vannia Community Development Trust, Rep By Its Manging Trustee, N.V. Boopalan High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-01-2020 H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority Versus Som Dutt Vasudeva Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla
31-12-2019 Rownakul Islam Barlaskar & Others Versus The Union of India, Represented by Secretariat to the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
27-12-2019 Sangam Srinivas Versus State of Telangana, rep. by the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box