JANHIT MANCH THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT BHAGVANJI RAIYANI vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — C.A. No. 10192/2010

Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010020922007

Filing Date

17-Jan-2007

Registration No

C.A. No. 10192/2010

Diary Number

2092/2007

Order Date

14-Dec-2018

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Neutral Citation

2018 INSC 1202

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.JANHIT MANCH THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT BHAGVANJI RAIYANI

    Adv. APPELLANT-IN-PERSON

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Adv. ABHA R. SHARMA SUCHITRA ATUL CHITALE N. ANNAPOORANI LAWYER S KNIT & CO NISHANT RAMAKANTRAO KATNESHWARKAR E. C. AGRAWALA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Dec-2018

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 14-Dec-2018

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 14-Dec-2018

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

  5. 20-Nov-2018

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 20-Nov-2018

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

  7. 20-Jul-2017

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

  8. 20-Jul-2017

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer

  9. 18-Jul-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 31-Jan-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 31-Jan-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 24-Jan-2017

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 06-Aug-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 06-Aug-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 25-Mar-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 25-Mar-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 25-Mar-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 25-Mar-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 15-Jan-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 15-Jan-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 15-Jan-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 15-Jan-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 29-Oct-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 29-Oct-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  25. 15-Oct-2014

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  26. 07-Aug-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  27. 07-Aug-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  28. 31-Jul-2014

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  29. 30-Apr-2014

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  30. 29-Nov-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  31. 25-Oct-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  32. 20-Sep-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  33. 30-Aug-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  34. 23-Apr-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  35. 29-Jan-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  36. 15-Dec-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  37. 07-Aug-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  38. 01-May-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  39. 30-Jan-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  40. 27-Nov-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  41. 11-Oct-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  42. 07-Sep-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  43. 23-Aug-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  44. 13-Aug-2007
  45. 07-May-2007
  46. 24-Apr-2007
  47. 17-Jan-2007

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 10192/2010

  48. [ 2018 INSC 1202 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed an NGO's appeal challenging Maharashtra's Transferable Development Rights (TDR) policy, which grants development incentives to builders undertaking slum rehabilitation. The Court upheld the High Court's detailed examination, finding the TDR scheme constitutional and reasonably designed to address housing shortages while acquiring public land for amenities. The Court emphasized separation of powers, holding that elected governments set policy and courts cannot interfere unless legislation violates constitutional mandates—none established here. The appeal was dismissed with no further relief required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case