The Greater Noida Authority now requires homebuyers to pay full stamp duty, typically 6% to 7% of the property's value, at the time of booking a flat in new housing projects and not when the builder hands over possession. 

Builders must execute a registered 'Agreement to Sell' once 10% of the flat's cost is paid, aligning with RERA guidelines. A separate 'Possession Deed' will be signed upon handover.

The policy aims to prevent multiple unregistered transfers and enhance revenue collection.

However, developers and buyer groups have raised concerns about the lack of clarity on stamp duty refunds in case of booking cancellations, potential legal disputes, and increased financial burden on buyers.

The Supreme Court has resolved a 63-year-old tenancy dispute involving the 'Mansarovar Palace' cinema hall in Prayagraj.

The property was leased to Ram Agya Singh in 1952. In 1962, Murlidhar Agarwal purchased it and later filed for eviction under the UP Rent laws, citing the need for his disabled and unemployed son.

In 1983, the Prescribed Authority allowed eviction, but the Appellate Authority and High Court later ruled in favor of the tenants. The Supreme Court overturned this decision, emphasizing the landlord's bona fide requirement.

The court granted the tenants until December 31, 2025, to vacate the premises after clearing dues and submitting an undertaking.

The Delhi High Court reprimanded the Delhi government and DDA for failing to provide official residences for judicial officers, warning them not to test the court’s patience.

The bench expressed frustration over repeated delays and said it felt like the court was "virtually begging." A ₹40 crore building in Dwarka was even demolished due to poor construction.

Despite earlier claims, no formal land allotment was made. The court highlighted a significant shortfall, with only 348 flats available against a sanctioned strength of 897 judicial officers.

The court granted three weeks for action, urging swift release of funds and stressing urgency in addressing judges’ housing needs. Next hearing on May 29. 

The Bombay High Court directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to immediately halt further demolition of the Jain temple in Vile Parle, Mumbai. 

The court granted ad-interim protection to the Shree 1008 Digambar Jain Mandir Trust after parts of the temple were demolished based on notices under the MRTP and MMC Acts. 

The Court noted the Trust was denied a reasoned rejection order and was entitled to be heard. BMC admitted partial demolition and was directed to file an affidavit and a demolition panchanama within two weeks.

The Court ordered the status quo to be maintained. Hearing resumes April 30.

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that receiving a new flat in exchange for an old one during redevelopment by the builder or developer is not taxable under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal observed that this transaction involves relinquishing rights to the old flat rather than acquiring property at a discounted value.

Such transactions may be subject to capital gains tax, but homeowners can claim an exemption under Section 54. Accordingly, the ITAT directed the deletion of the addition made by the tax authorities.

The Supreme Court recorded the Centre's statement that no waqf property, whether notified or registered under "waqf by user", will be denotified or altered until the next hearing.

The Centre further assured that no appointments shall be made to the Central or State Waqf Boards under amended Sections 9 and 14 of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025.

The Solicitor General has been granted seven days to file a comprehensive response covering the legislative background of the Act.

The Court scheduled the next hearing in the week commencing May 5, 2025, maintaining the existing status quo.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a plea by Dinesh Kumar challenging the allotment of Super Deluxe flats under a HEWO scheme, ruling that a participant who failed in a draw of lots cannot later question the process.

The Court ruled that a participant who voluntarily participates in such a process cannot later challenge its legality.

Citing the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012, the Court found the allotment post-surrender was transparent and upheld HEWO’s decision. The plea was thus rejected as meritless.

The SC upheld the right of homebuyers to peacefully protest against builders, emphasizing this as part of their consumer rights.

The Court quashed a defamation complaint filed by M/s A Surti Developers against Mumbai homeowners who had put up banners to highlight their grievances.

The builder alleged that the statements were defamatory, but the Court determined that the language used was neither offensive nor excessive, and the protest was conducted peacefully. 

The Court ruled that HC can examine if any exceptions to defamation charges under Section 499 IPC at the stage of Section 482 CrPC petition. 

Hence, the Complaint against homeowners was quashed.

The Supreme Court heard a plea filed by Naushad K K, a practising Muslim, who wants to be governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, instead of Shariat law in matters of inheritance.

The Court noted the similar pending case Sufiya PM v. Union of India, where the petitioner had renounced Islam, clarifying that Naushad K K's plea is different from the present one. 

The court also acknowledged the 2016 Special Leave Petition by the Quran Sunnath Society challenging the constitutionality of Section 58 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which excludes Muslims from its scope.

The Court listed the matter for further consideration alongside related cases; no final decision was issued.

The Supreme Court held that the limitation period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act begins from the date the cause of action first arises, not when the plaintiff gains “full knowledge” of the dispute.

Rejecting the Gujarat High Court’s interpretation, the bench of Justices ruled that distinguishing between “knowledge” and “full knowledge” is fallacious.

The Court emphasized that when a suit is time-barred, as in this case where the plaintiff challenged the father's will and codicil after a three-year limitation period, it can be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d) without requiring evidence. 

Ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on April 16 regarding petitions challenging the Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, six states - Assam, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, and Maharashtra have filed intervention applications in support of the legislation.

They argue that the Act introduces essential reforms, enhances transparency, and addresses the misuse of Section 40, which previously allowed Waqf Boards to claim properties without adequate checks.

The amendment mandates public notice before any property is designated as Waqf. Assam highlighted Section 3E, which prohibits the creation of Waqf in Scheduled Tribal Areas.

The states told the Court they are “necessary and proper parties” as they are responsible for implementing the Act and possess relevant data to assist in proper adjudication.

The Supreme Court has ruled that only the Bombay High Court will hear all matters related to the land allotment for its upcoming new complex.

It held that no other court shall entertain any such proceedings to avoid conflicting orders and ensure faster resolution.

The direction came in a suo motu case, where the Maharashtra government stated it had handed over 1.94 acres out of the promised 4.09 acres. The remaining 2.15 acres is expected to be transferred by April 30, 2025.

The Court asked the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to assign all related cases to a single bench. The next hearing is scheduled for July 2025.

The Gujarat government has amended the Stamp Duty Act to lower rates and simplify procedures.

Stamp duty is now capped at ₹5,000 for loans up to ₹1 crore, and raised to ₹15 lakh for loans above ₹10 crore. Lease agreements under a year will attract a ₹500 duty for residential and ₹1,000 for commercial properties.

Legal heirs of deceased daughters can now correct ancestral property documents by paying ₹200. In mortgage cases, banks will be liable for any unpaid stamp duty.

These changes aim to improve transparency, reduce litigation, and promote ease of doing business in the state.

The Supreme Court has laid down clear guidelines for interpreting legal deeds and contracts.

It emphasized a threefold approach: first, using the Literal Rule to interpret words in their plain, ordinary sense; second, applying the Golden Rule to avoid absurd results from literal meanings; and third, using the Purposive Rule when needed, to understand the intent behind the document.

In a case involving a hotel conducting agreement, the Court ruled that it did not create tenancy rights and highlighted that oral evidence cannot override written agreements, except in cases of fraud or mistake, as per the Indian Evidence Act.

The Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision, dismissed the appeal, and imposed ₹1 lakh in costs.