Supreme Court of India Judgements

37260 Judgements hosted as on12/06/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: State Laws

State Laws

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 123 — Regularisation of unauthorised occupation — Legal fiction created by Section 123(2) deems land settled with house owners in possession by a specific cut-off date, overriding Section 143 declaration — Regularisation is a socio-economic measure and is applicable even if houses were built forcefully or without consent.

Feb 26, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 193 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM NARAIN (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS Vs. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS ( Before : S.V.N. Bhatti and R.…

State Laws

Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 — Section 16 — Creation of Revenue Villages — Naming Convention — Circular dated 20.08.2009, Clause 4 — Policy regarding naming — Clause 4 mandates that the name of a new Revenue Village shall not be based on any person, religion, caste, or sub-caste — Names “Amargarh” and “Sagatsar” derived from names of individuals (Amarram and Sagat Singh) — Naming is in contravention of the policy circular — Policy decisions, even if executive in nature, bind the Government, and any action taken in derogation thereof (without lawful amendment or justification) is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 — Notification dated 31.12.2020 creating ‘Amargarh’ and ‘Sagatsar’ is void to the extent it contravenes the binding policy. (Paras 15, 16, 17)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1482 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHIKA RAM AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil…

State Laws

M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLRC) — Sections 109, 110 — Mutation of Land Records — Acquisition of Right — Mutation based on a Will — The MPLRC and the Madhya Pradesh Bhu-Rajasv Sanhita (Bhu-Abhilekhon Mein Namantaran) Niyam, 2018, do not prohibit mutation based on a registered will; application for mutation based on a will must be considered on merits — Full Bench decision of the High Court confirmed that an application for mutation based on a will cannot be rejected at the threshold — Where no serious dispute is raised by the natural legal heirs of the deceased tenure holder, mutation based on a will should not be denied. (Paras 15, 18, 19, 21)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1485 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TARACHANDRA Vs. BHAWARLAL AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 15077 of 2025…

State Laws

Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 — Section 103 — Cooperative societies functioning immediately before reorganisation of States — Object and scope of ‘deemed conversion’ — Section 103 does not automatically convert a cooperative society registered under a State Act into a multi-State cooperative society merely due to State reorganisation (e.g., bifurcation of Uttar Pradesh into Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand) — The conversion under Section 103 depends on whether the ‘objects’ of the society extend to more than one State, not merely on the statutory restructuring of the territory — Where the objects of a society remain confined to only one State after reorganisation, it continues to be governed by the applicable State Cooperative Societies Act. (Paras 9, 11, 15A, 15B, 15C, 12.18, 12.19, 14)

Dec 17, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1427 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS Vs. MILKIYAT SINGH AND OTHERS ETC. ( Before : Vikram Nath…

State Laws

Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 — Section 30 — Maintenance of Map and Field Book — Correction of Revenue Map — Scope of Section 30 — Section 30 allows the Collector to record annual changes in boundaries or correct errors or omissions detected in the map or field book (khasra) — It does not permit reopening an issue settled previously between parties regarding the location or extent of plots, especially when the earlier decision attained finality and was based on determined possession and ownership — Efforts to change the location of a purchased plot, which has already been subject to final determination under the predecessor law (Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901), do not fall within the scope of “correction of errors or omissions” under Section 30. (Paras 5.1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 10, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1405 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUVEJ SINGH Vs. RAM NARESH AND OTHERS ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No…of 2025 (Arising…

Constitution State Laws

Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 — Section 4 (unamended) — Person competent to lodge FIR — Essential Nature — Prohibition Act is a special legislation and its procedure must be followed, overriding general CrPC provisions for FIR registration by police — Prior to 2024 Amendment, Section 4 restricted FIR lodging to aggrieved persons or their relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption — This restriction is not a mere procedural nicety but a deliberate legislative choice to protect individual autonomy and prevent frivolous litigation in matters of personal religious faith — FIR lodged by complainant not falling within these categories is ab initio void and liable for quashing.

Oct 26, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1249 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA BIHARI LAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.…

State Laws

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as amended by Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992 — Section 2(g)(6) — Validity — Land reserved for common purposes under East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, vesting with Gram Panchayat — Held valid — Amendment did not suffer from constitutional infirmity — Land reserved for common purposes cannot be re-partitioned amongst proprietors.

Sep 21, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1122 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JAI SINGH AND OTHERS ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan,…

State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1015 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TARABAI NAGAR CO-OP. HOG. SOCIETY (PROPOSED) Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar…

State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1016 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SALDANHA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. BISHOP JOHN RODRIGUES AND OTHERS ( Before : Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

You missed

SARFAESI

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Auction Sale — Compliance with Rule 9 — Mandatory Nature — Payment of Balance 75% Beyond 15-Day Period — No Written Agreement for Extension — Sale Set Aside — Article 142 — Redemption Opportunity Granted to Legal Heirs of Deceased Guarantor.

Jun 12, 2026 sclaw
Cr P C

Third Judge under S. 392 CrPC cannot disturb unanimous Division Bench findings; reference confined to disagreed accused only.–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 392 — Third Judge — Power to give independent opinion — Options available — When an appeal is heard by a Division Bench and the Judges are divided in opinion, the appeal is laid before a third Judge under S. 392 — The third Judge is not confined to choosing between the two views expressed by the Division Bench Judges — The third Judge may: (i) agree with either of the two opinions expressed; (ii) form an independent view at divergence with both opinions; or (iii) where warranted, receive additional evidence under S. 391 before forming an opinion — The opinion of the third Judge governs and the judgment follows therefrom.

Jun 12, 2026 sclaw
Constitution Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226(1) — Territorial jurisdiction — Writ petition by CAPF personnel — Delhi High Court — Jurisdiction based on situs of respondent’s office —The Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction under Art. 226(1) of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition preferred by any enrolled member of the Border Security Force or any Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) who is aggrieved by an administrative order of termination of service, by reason of the situs of the offices of the Union of India and the Director General of the concerned CAPF in New Delhi — and this jurisdictional competence subsists notwithstanding that the impugned order of termination was issued from a place outside the territorial limits of the Delhi High Court and that no part of the cause of action arose within such limits — The Union of India and the Director General, BSF are necessary parties to such a writ petition by virtue of Ss. 4 and 5 of the BSF Act and the requirement under R. 22(4) of the BSF Rules that every order of dismissal/removal be reported to the Director General; there is, moreover, a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed.

Jun 12, 2026 sclaw
Accident

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 168 — Compensation — Death of homemaker — New head of ‘Loss of Domestic Care’ — Basis and quantum — The conventional method of computing compensation upon the death of a homemaker suffers from an inherent disadvantage — Notional income, as assigned by earlier decisions, fails to capture the economic, emotional and managerial contributions that a homemaker makes to the household and to nation-building at large — In recognition of the multifarious yet unquantified roles of a homemaker — (i) contribution towards smooth functioning of the household; (ii) loss of maternal support to children; and (iii) loss of spousal/parental support — a composite sum of Rs. 30,000/- per month shall be added under the head ‘Loss of Domestic Care’ — This sum shall serve as the stand-in monthly income where the homemaker has no conventional monetary income — It shall be revised cumulatively by 10% every three years — Where the homemaker is part of the paid workforce, this head shall be in addition to the proved monthly income.

Jun 12, 2026 sclaw