DEFENCE ENCLAVE RESIDENTS SOCIETY vs STATE OF U.P. . — W.P.(C) No. 344/2000
Case under Section X. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010035732000
Filing Date
24-Feb-2000
Registration No
W.P.(C) No. 344/2000
Diary Number
3573/2000
Order Date
20-Sep-2004
Document Type
Judgment - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DEFENCE ENCLAVE RESIDENTS SOCIETY
Adv. RAJINDER MATHUR
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF U.P. .
Adv. NIRANJANA SINGH KAMLENDRA MISHRA M. P. SHORAWALA (Dead / Retired / Elevated)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
20-Sep-2004
Judgment - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Sep-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Aug-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
26-Mar-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Feb-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Jan-2004
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Dec-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Nov-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Oct-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
01-Aug-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Jul-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
31-Mar-2003
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
16-Dec-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Nov-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
22-Oct-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Sep-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Aug-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Jul-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Jun-2002
ROPView PDF
-
22-Apr-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Apr-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Mar-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Feb-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Jan-2002
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Sep-2001
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-May-2001
ROPView PDF
-
24-Feb-2000
Case filed
Registration No. W.P.(C) No. 344/2000
Summary of W.P.(C) No. 344/2000 – Defence Enclave Residents Society v. State of U.P. The Supreme Court dismissed four consolidated writ petitions challenging the Meerut Development Authority's demand for additional payments from plot allottees following a court-ordered increase in land acquisition compensation. The Court held this was fundamentally a contractual dispute unsuitable for adjudication under Article 32, as no fundamental rights violation existed—property ceased being a fundamental right after the 44th Amendment, and the dispute required detailed factual investigation into individual contracts, not constitutional remedies. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts