Supreme Court – Daily Orders
The Chairman And Managing Director, … vs D. Vijaykumar on 27 July, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.10230/2023]
THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE APPELLANT(S)
INDUSTRIES PROMOTION CORPORATION OF
TAMIL NADU LTD.
VERSUS
D. VIJAYKUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[SLP(C) No.10233/2023]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[SLP(C) No. 10234/2023]
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
[SLP(C) Nos. 6363-6424/2023]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[SLP(C) No. 10231/2023]
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
[SLP(C) Nos. 10235-10236/2023]
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
[SLP(C) Nos. 10239-10325/2023]
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
[SLP(C) Nos. 10327-10328/2023]
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2026
[SLP(C) Nos. 22770-22856/2025]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
[SLP(C) No. OF 2026]
SACHIN KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
Date: 2026.07.30
[Diary No(s). 42231/2026]
16:55:13 IST
Reason:
1
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
[SLP(C) No. OF 2026]
[Diary No(s). 42219/2026]
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The issue that arises for consideration in these
cases is whether the respondent – landowners are
entitled to be paid compensation for their acquired land
in accordance with provision of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short,
‘2013 Act’) with cut-off date of 01.01.2014 or as per
the rate determined under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of
Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (in short, ‘1997
Act’).
4. The State of Tamil Nadu accorded administrative
approval to acquire 970 acres of land in favour of the
State Industrial Corporation on 06.01.2009. Thereafter,
a notification under Section 3(2) of the 1997 Act was
issued on 27.10.2009. This was followed by a public
notice in Form ‘B’ on the same date. The State
Government, after waiting for two years, published a
notification in the Government Gazette on 13.12.2011.
However, no award was passed. Meanwhile, writ petitions
2
were filed challenging certain provisions of the rules
framed by the State Government under the 1997 Act. We
are informed that interim protection was granted by the
High Court in those writ petitions on different dates
during the year 2012 to 2013.
5. Section 7 of the 1997 Act deals with “determination
and payment of amount”. Sub-section (1) provides that
where any land is acquired by the State Government under
this Act, compensation for such land shall be determined
in accordance with the provisions of this section. Sub-
section (6) of Section 7 has a material bearing, and it
reads as follows:
“7(6) In determining the amount, the Collector
shall be guided by the provisions contained in
sections 23 and 24 and other relevant
provisions of the of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 subject to modifications that-
(a) in the said section 23, the references to
the date of publication of the notification
under section 4, sub-section (1) and the time
of publication of the declaration under section
6 of the said Act shall be construed as
reference to the date of publication of notice
under sub-section (20 and (1) respectively of
section 3 of this Act; and
(b) in the said section 24, the references to
the date of publication of notification under
section 4, sub-section (1) and the date of
publication of the declaration under section 6
of the said Act shall be construed as
references to the date of publication of notice
under sub-section (2) and (1) respectively of
section 3 of this Act.”
6. It may also be explained at this stage that barring
Section 7, the 1997 Act does not describe any mechanism
3
for acquisition of land. It is obvious that the
acquisition process, as mandated by Section 7(6) of the
1997 Act, was required to be completed in accordance
with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(in short, ‘1894 Act’). Even otherwise, the acquisition
proceeding was to be concluded and the award made within
a reasonable time.
7. The 1894 Act came to be repealed with the
enforcement of the 2013 Act with effect from 01.01.2014.
Section 24 of the 2013 Act too has some relevance, and
it reads as follows:
“24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of
1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain
cases.–(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
this Act, in any case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894,—
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said
Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all
provisions of this Act relating to the
determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has
been made, then such proceedings shall continue
under the provisions of the said Land
Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been
repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-
section (1), in case of land acquisition
proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (1 of 1894),where an award under the
said section 11 has been made five years or more
prior to the commencement of this Act but the
physical possession of the land has not been
taken or the compensation has not been paid the
said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed
and the appropriate Government, if it so
chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such
land acquisition afresh in accordance with the
provisions of this Act:
4
Provided that where an award has been made and
compensation in respect of a majority of land
holdings has not been deposited in the account
of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries
specified in the notification for acquisition
under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition
Act, shall be entitled to compensation in
accordance with the provisions of this Act.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
8. In the pending writ petitions, the question that
arose for consideration was whether, in light of the new
statutory regime which came into force w.e.f 01.01.2014,
the respondent-landowners were entitled to be paid
compensation for the acquired land in accordance with
the provisions of the 2013 Act, with cut-off date of
01.01.2014 or the State of Tamil Nadu was competent to
pass an award under the old regime.
9. It is an admitted fact that despite notification
under Section 3(2) of the 1997 Act having been made in
2009, no award could be passed before 01.01.2014. It is
true that interim orders came to be passed sometime in
2012-2013, but considerable time had lapsed between
issuance of notification under Section 3 of the 1997 Act
and such interim orders and no award had been made in
the meantime. It is no longer res integra that after the
2013 Act came into force, the pending acquisition
processes, where an award was yet to be passed, were
required to be completed under Section 24(1)(a) of the
2013 Act and the award was required to be passed in such
cases based on the market value of the land as on
5
01.01.2014. This is precisely what the High Court has
done in the instant case.
10. We may hasten to add that in view of Section 7(6) of
the 1997 Act (State Act), the expression ‘Land
Acquisition Act, 1894’ shall be deemed to have been
substituted by the ‘Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013’ as the emphasis made by State
Legislation is on the ‘Central Act’. There is no quarrel
that at the time the award came to be passed, the
Central Act in force governing the acquisition of land
was the 2013 Act.
11. In this view of the matter, we find that the High
Court has not committed any error in holding that the
respondent-landowners are entitled to be paid
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the
2013 Act based on the market value to be determined as
on 01.01.2014.
12. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are
dismissed. The appellants are directed to proceed in
accordance with law.
13. However, if the State of Tamil Nadu finds that the
acquisition will not be viable in public interest on
account of the alleged excessive payment of compensation
under the 2013 Act, they shall be at liberty to release
6
the subject land from acquisition and restore the same
to the landowners free from all encumbrances. An
appropriate decision in this regard shall be taken
within eight weeks.
……………………..CJI.
(SURYA KANT)
……………………….J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
……………………….J.
(V. MOHANA)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 27, 2026
7
ITEM NO.22 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).10230/2023
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-10-2022
in WP No.7550/2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras]
THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE INDUSTRIES
PROMOTION CORPORATION OF TAMIL NADU LTD. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
D. VIJAYKUMAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 47391/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 47388/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA
No.304276/2025 – MODIFICATION OF COURT ORDER, IA No. 66843/2023 –
PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
WITH
SLP(C) No. 10233/2023 (XII)
IA No. 42064/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 42065/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
SLP(C) No. 10234/2023 (XII)
IA No. 79222/2025 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS, IA No.44870/2023
– EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
SLP(C) No. 6363-6424/2023 (XII)
IA No. 48427/2025 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
SLP(C) No. 10231/2023 (XII)
IA No. 51565/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 66863/2023 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
SLP(C) No. 10235-10236/2023 (XII)
IA No. 54199/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 63175/2023 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
SLP(C) No. 10239-10325/2023 (XII)
IA No. 81630/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
SLP(C) No. 10327-10328/2023 (XII)
IA No. 75575/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 75577/2023 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA
No.87274/2023 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
8
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
SLP(C) No. 22770-22856/2025 (XII)
IA No. 95269/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
Diary No(s). 42231/2026 (XII)
IA No. 205209/2026 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA
No.205210/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 205211/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA
No.205212/2026 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Diary No(s). 42219/2026 (XII)
IA No. 204058/2026 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA
No.204060/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 204068/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA
No.204064/2026 – PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 27-07-2026 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE V. MOHANA
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, A.A.G.
Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, AOR
Ms. Vanshita Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Rajlakshmi Singh, Adv.
Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. K. S. Mahadevan, Adv.
Ms. Swati Bansal, Adv.
Mr. R. Rangarajan, Adv.
Mr. Aravind Gopinathan, Adv.
Mr. R. Rajesh, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AOR
Mr. V Balachandran, Adv.
Mr. M Rajasekar, Adv.
Mr. S Jeevanantham, Adv.
M/s. KSN & Co., AOR
Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. N. Doraikanan, Adv.
Mr. V. Balaji, Adv.
Mr. B. Dhananjay, Adv.
9
Mr. Vinod K. Nair, Adv.
Mr. KV Dhanapalan, Adv.
Mr. C. Kannan, Adv.
Ms. Vidushi Aggarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv.
Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
Mr. B. Arvind Srevatsa, Adv.
Mrs. Aarthi Rajan, AOR
Mr. S. Santanam Swaminadhan, Adv.
Ms. Abhilasha Shrawat, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. Aman Rawat, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
4. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT) (PREETHI DILEEP KUMAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS DY. REGISTRAR
(signed order is placed on the file)
10
