Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J
11.S.Mehdi Ispahani – Appellant
Versus
The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common issue in both writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's property ownership and application. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. petitioners' title and cmda gift deed demand. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. cmda justifies gift deed via master plan. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. petitioners cite precedents against gift deeds. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 6. aag defends via t&cp act sections. (Para 18) |
| 7. article 300a protects property from deprivation. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. petitioners willing for compensated surrender. (Para 23) |
| 9. cmda powers under t&cp act for plans. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 10. no statutory basis for compulsory gift deed. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 11. acquisition via rfctlarr act required. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 12. gift deed insistence fetters discretion. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 13. prior rules optional, not mandatory. (Para 42 , 43) |
| 14. rule 35(19) requires live notification. (Para 46 , 47) |
| 15. precedents prohibit enforced gift deeds. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 16. writ petitions allowed without gift deed. (Para 54) |
C O M M O N O R D E R
1.These two writ petitions present a common issue. Hence, they are disposed by way of this common order.
2.The issues that are presented are:
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
