Prudeta
Prudeta
2026 INSC 664
📌 Paras 3-14
The appellants' predecessor-in-interest was the original owner of the subject property. In 1974, the Development Plan reserved certain lands for public amenities, including the subject property, with a provision for rehabilitation. An unregistered agreement to sell the subject property was allegedly entered into in 1984, and possession was handed over in 1988 for a police station. The predecessor-in-interest applied for a construction 'Sanad' in 2002, but was informed the land was reserved for a police station. After a remand by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the SDO directed the appellants to locate alternate property. The respondents claimed alternate land, but their claim was rejected. The SDO then allotted alternate properties to the ap
The bench further analyzed the constitutional validity of the impugned provisions and discussed the interpretation of Articles 14 and 21 in light of recent precedents...
Citing the ratio in prior decisions, the court held that the legislative intent was to ensure...
No credit card required · 14-day free trial