Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs M/S Vauhini Bricks Works on 19 February, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.30409-30410/2024)
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S VAUHINI BRICKS WORKS RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. of 2026)
[Diary No(s).41839/2024]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
I GATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LIMITED RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Delay in Diary No.41839/2024 is condoned.
2. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ARJUN BISHT
Date: 2026.02.25
16:50:01 IST
Reason:
3. These appeals are directed against the judgments/orders
dated 26.02.2016, 25.07.2023, and 27.09.2023 rendered by the
1
High Court of Judicature at Madras in a batch of land
acquisition cases, wherein such acquisition was declared 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”).
4. It is not in dispute that a substantial part of the
appeals arising out of the impugned judgments/orders of the
High Court were disposed of by this Court on 27.11.2024 in
C.A. Nos. 13256-13257/2024 and various other connected
appeals, by invoking its powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India. In terms of our earlier order, while
the landowners were held entitled to claim compensation
under the 2013 Act, which was to be assessed as on
01.01.2014, i.e. when the 2013 Act came into force, the
acquisition itself was saved to ensure that the public
purpose, for which it took place, was not hampered.
5. During the course of hearing, a feeble attempt has been
made to distinguish the instant cases on grounds such as:
(i) Part possession of the acquired land had already been
taken, and hence, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act will not be
attracted in the light of the Constitution Bench judgment of
this Court in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal,
(2020) 8 SCC 129; and
(ii) Some of the writ petitioners before the High Court are
2
subsequent purchasers and are not the original owners.
6. We have duly considered the above-stated submissions,
but do not find any merit therein. First, the High Court
lays down a clear finding that possession continued with the
landowners and not with the beneficiary or the acquiring
Authority. Even assuming that possession of a parcel of land
was taken, per se, that may not be a standalone ground
sufficient to defeat the object of Section 24(2) of the 2013
Act. Second, the locus standi of a subsequent purchaser
becomes relevant when there is a challenge to the
acquisition. In the instant case, the relief has been
confined only to payment of compensation. If the original
landowner has not been paid and has not come forward to
dispute the claim of the subsequent purchasers, we see no
legal impediment as to why the same amount of compensation,
which has been paid to similarly placed original landowners,
should not be paid to them. Both objections are, thus,
turned down.
7. Consequently, these appeals are also disposed of
strictly in terms of our order dated 27.11.2024, passed in
the batch of appeals arising out of the same judgment of the
High Court, including C.A. No.13256-13257/2024, especially
the directions contained in paragraph nos. 24 and 25
thereof. The enhanced/revised compensation amount, along
with all statutory benefits, shall be paid to the
3
respondents as early as possible, but not later than six
weeks from the date of passing this order.
……………………..CJI.
(SURYA KANT)
……………………….J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
……………………….J.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 19, 2026
4
ITEM NO.41 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).30409-30410/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-02-2016
in WA No. 1428/2014 25-07-2023 in RA No. 171/2017 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Madras]
TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
M/S VAUHINI BRICKS WORKS Respondent(s)
IA No. 187431/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
WITH
Diary No(s). 41839/2024 (XII)
IA No. 294531/2024 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA
No.294533/2024 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING/CURING THE
DEFECTS, IA No. 294528/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
Date : 19-02-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. K Radhakrishnan, 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.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Chiranjeev Singh, Adv.
Mr. S.R. Raghunathan, Adv.
Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Subramanian, Adv.
Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Adv.
Mrs. Aarthi Rajan, AOR
Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR
Mr. T. Meikandan, Adv.
5
Mr. M Vishnu Venkatesh, Adv.
Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv.
Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv.
Mr. P Raja Ram, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay in Diary No.41839/2024 is condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
4. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI T.C.) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)
6
