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

2026 Supreme(SC) 291

SURYA KANT, JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Represented by its Member Secretary – Appellant
Versus
Dharmalingam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. V Krishnamurthy, AAG/Sr. Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. P Gandepan, Adv. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Adv. Ms. Yashi Jain, Adv. Ms. Anjali Singh, Adv. Ms. Raniba Pangnila, Adv. Mr. Sachin, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Yusuf, AOR Dr. Ram Sankar,, Adv. Mr. Maheswaran Prabakaran,, Adv. Mr. N Adhil, Adv. Mr. Naveen Kumar Ma, Adv. Mr. Suryanarayananan Muthukrishan, Adv. Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananta Prasad Mishra, AOR Mr. Jasbir Singh, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Adv. Mr. Y Arunagiri, Adv. Mr. R. Sudhakaran, AOR Mr. Yuvraj Nandal, Adv. Dr. P. V. Saravanaraja, AOR Mr. P.veerappan, Adv. Mr. Shaikh Farukpasha Bashumiya, Adv. Mr. M.j.riaz Ahamed, Adv. Mrs. Muskan, Adv. Mrs. Bachita Baruah, Adv. Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Monika, Adv. Mr. Amar Kumar Raizada, Adv. Dr. Dere Kishor Shankar, Adv. Mr. Arun Kumar Arunachal, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Gopal Singh, Adv. Mr. Vishal Thakre, Adv. Ms. Anjale Kumari, Adv. Mr. Deepak Yadav, Adv. Ms. Sangita Mishra, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, CJI.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. The Appellant-Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority is in appeal against the judgment dated 12.07.2013 (First Impugned Judgment) and the subsequent order dated 25.09.2014 (Second Impugned Order) passed by two different Division Benches of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (High Court). Vide the first judgment, the intra-court appeals preferred by the respondent-land owners were allowed, with a direction to release the acquired land in purported exercise of powers under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act), as applicable in the State of Tamil Nadu. The second order was passed by the High Court, rejecting the Review Application preferred by the Appellant.

A. FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The relevant facts giving rise to the instant Appeals are presented hereafter:

    3.1. The land of the respondent-landowners was sought to be acquired for the public purpose of developing an inter-city bus and truck terminal by the Appellant-Authority in Chennai City. To this end, different notifications under Section 4 of the LA Act were issued in 1982-1985, covering a total land area of 82.86 acres. The State Government,

      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