Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966

5 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

TARABAI NAGAR CO-OP. HOG. SOCIETY (PROPOSED)versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 101522 August 2025Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined a dispute over the acquisition of a 9,054‑sq‑m land in a Slum Rehabilitation (SR) Area in Mumbai, owned by Indian Cork Mills Private Limited (ICM) but claimed by the Tarabai Nagar Co‑op. Housing Society. The Court considered whether the owner has a preferential right to redevelop the SR Area

IN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI STOREYED BUILDINGS IN FOREST LAND MAHARASHTRA versus

2025 INSC 70115 May 2025

The case concerned 11.89 ha of land in Kondhwa Budruk, Pune, notified as Reserved Forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1878, which was later allotted to the Chavan family in 1998 for agricultural purposes without Central Government approval under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The Chavan family subsequently sold the

KUKREJA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & OTHERSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS

2024 INSC 69213 September 2024

The appellants, owners of land reserved for Development Plan Roads under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, constructed the roads at their own cost, surrendered the land to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and were granted 25% transferable development rights (TDR). They later claimed the balance 75% (or 10

KAZI AKILODDINversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2024 INSC 50510 July 2024

The appellant, owner of a 1.25‑lac‑sq‑ft land in Akola, challenged the award of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a flood‑protection wall, contending that the land was not wholly within the statutory ‘Blue Zone’ and that the market value should be based on arm‑length transactions.

ROHAN VIJAY NAHAR & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 12967 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, private landowners in Maharashtra, challenged revenue annotations and mutation entries that labelled their lands as private forests and vested in the State, arguing that the statutory requirements for acquisition were not fulfilled. The State contended that notices issued under Section 35(3) of the Indi

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