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

2025 Supreme(SC) 655

SANJIV KHANNA, SANJAY KUMAR
T. Udaykumar – Appellant
Versus
Ravichandran – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R. Padmanabhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arimardhan Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ruchi Arya, Adv. Mr. Pramod Dayal, AOR Ms. Mirinalini Ramesh, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kunal Prakash, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta, AOR Mr. Kartik Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ankit Vashisht, Adv. Mr. Abdul Hameed, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anshula Vijay Kumar Grover, AOR Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR Mr. Nagamuthu S., Sr. Adv. Mr. Shubham Saigal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. Thananjayan, AOR Mr. R. C. Kohli, AOR Mr. R. V. Kameshwaran, AOR Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, AOR Ms. Neha Sharma, AOR Mr. Deeptakirti Verma, Adv. Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. R. Viduthalai, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. V. Jagdishvaran, Adv. Mr. Gandeepan, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., AOR Mr. Varun Singh, AOR Ms. Nalini Chidambaram, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anshula Vijay Kumar Grover, AOR

ORDER :

1. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we do not find any good ground and reason to interfere with the reasoning of the High Court and the findings recorded with regard to the acquisition of the land whereupon the Tamil Nadu Housing Board1 [For short “TNHB”] became the owner of the subject extent of 0.90 cents of land located in Survey No. 297/1 of Kodambakkam Village, Mambalam, Guindy Taluk, Chennai.

2. We would like to add that the confusion has probably arisen account of the incorrect mention of the total area of the acquired land in the order/judgment dated 13.03.1981 passed in CROP. No. 145/1976. In this order, by mistake, the extent of land has been written as 4.05 acres instead of 4.95 acres. It is clear to us, as the awarded compensation mentioned in the order dated 13.03.1981 is Rs. 62,209.82 (Rupees sixty two thousand three hundred nine and ninety two paisa only), the figure which matches with the amount of compensation payable to the then owners, S. Velu Mudaliar and Rajalakshmi Ammal.

3. Reliance placed by the appellant, T. Udaykumar, on the Ratification Deed dated 19.01.2004, in our opinion, does not carry weight because what was ratif

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