Indore Development Authority vs Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 186

M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Indore Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv. Mr. Surya Prakash, Adv. Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Adv. Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv. Mr. Lalit Rajput, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR Mr. Nitin S. Tambwekar, Adv. Mr. Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, AOR Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. Ajay Choudhary, AOR Mr. Niraj Sharma, AOR Ms. Mahima Sharma, Adv. Ms. Tanya Raizada, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR Mr. Rajan Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Rahul Kaushik, AOR Mr. R.N. Mishra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.K. Rajora, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Ms. Niharika Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Ravish Kumar Goyal, Adv. Mr. Deepak Namdari, Adv. Mr. K. Rajeev, AOR

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Delay condoned. Substitution allowed. Abatement is set aside. Cause title be amended accordingly.

1A. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 28.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Appeal No. 873 of 2008 and other connected writ appeals, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeals, confirming the common judgment and order dated 10.12.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single allowed the respective writ petitions against finalisation of Scheme No. 97 under Section 50 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Adhiniyam’) and the subsequent land acquisition proceedings undertaken by the State of Madhya Pradesh under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1894’), the Indore Development Authority has preferred the present appeals.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under:

The Indore Development A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 186

M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNAIndore Development Authority – AppellantVersusBurhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar – Respondent

M. R. SHAH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Indore Development Authority – Appellant
Versus
Burhani Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Sneh Nagar – Respondent