SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 1307

SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN
Tamil Nadu Housing Board – Appellant
Versus
Poovatha – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. V Krishnamurthy, AAG (Sr. Adv.), Ms. G. Indira, AOR, Mr. P Gandepan, Adv., Ms. Anvita Tiwari, Adv., Mr. Gandepan, Adv., Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pulkit Tare, AOR, Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv., Dr. Ram Shankar, Adv., Mrs. Harini Ramshankar, Adv., Mr. Abhaid Parikh, AOR, Mr. R Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Mr. A Mariarputham, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rohini Musa, Adv., Dr. B Venkatraman, Adv., Mr. C Thirumaran, Adv., Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv., Mr. Paramasivam, Adv., Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv., Mr. Ankit Sharma, Adv., Mr. Arvind A, Adv., Mrs. Sujatha Bagadhi, Adv., Ms. Harini Ramsankar, Adv., Mr. G Jai Singh, Adv., Mr. Saran, Adv., Mr. Debasish Mishra, Adv., Mrs. Usha Prabakaran, Adv., Mr. Purushotaman, Adv., Mr. Muthu Ganesa Pandian, Adv., Mr. Sanya Minhas, Adv., Mr. Maheswaran Prabakaran, Adv., Mr. R V Babu, Adv., M/s. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR, Mr. Avneesh Arputham, AOR, Mr. Sachin Sharma, AOR, Mr. Anil Kaushik, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rajat Rana, Adv., Mrs. Shashi Sharma, Adv., Mr. Mayank Gautam, Adv., Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Singh, AOR, Mr. Yusuf, AOR, Mr. H. Chandra Sekhar, AOR, Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR, Mr. R. Chandrachud, Adv., Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR, Mr. Dhulivenkata Krishna, Adv., Mr. Sameer Aslam, Adv.

ORDER :

1. Application for impleadment is allowed. Cause title be amended accordingly.

2. We are informed that in some of the cases the service is incomplete. However, it seems to us that all the land owners are not required to be heard as effective hearing have been accorded to them on representative basis.

3. Delay condoned.

4. Leave granted.

5. This batch of civil appeals have no similarity on facts as all the matters have arisen out of different acquisitions made by the State of Tamil Nadu under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the “1894 Act”), for the purported public purpose of development of housing schemes by the beneficiary of the acquisition, namely, the Tamil Nadu Hosing Board (in short, the “Housing Board”) – appellant no.1. The reason that these matters have been clubbed together is the common question as to whether the subject acquisitions are deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, the “2013 Act”) and if so, whether the appellants are obligated to commence the acquisition process afresh in accordance with provisions of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top