State of TN /S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DIARY NO.17103/2026 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-02-2026 in SLP(C) No.8044/2025 passed by the Supreme Court of India] LOGANATHAN PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU RESPONDENT(S) [TO BE TAKEN UP AT 2.00 P.M.]

ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.10 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DIARY NO.17103/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-02-2026 in SLP(C) No.8044/2025 passed by the Supreme Court of India] LOGANATHAN PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU RESPONDENT(S)
[TO BE TAKEN UP AT 2.00 P.M.]
IA No. 157121/2026 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 156839/2026 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 152525/2026 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 182915/2026 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN DEPOSITING COST IA No. 156984/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 156840/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 157127/2026 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 156982/2026 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 152528/2026 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
Date : 04-08-2026 This matter was called for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AMICUS CURIAE Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Govind Jee, AoR Mr. Naveen Soni, Adv.
Mr. Shaswat Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv.
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Purnima Krishna, AoR Mr. N. Rajaraman, AoR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Prashanto Chandra Sen, AAG/Sr. Adv.
Ms. Kavitha Nithyanandan Rameshwar, AAG
Mr. B. Karunakaran, AoR
Mr. Shoaib Fazil S., Adv.
(For State of Tamil Nadu)
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Mudgal, Adv.
Mr. K. Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Anupam Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv.
Mr. Surit Chaubey, Adv.
Ms. G. Indira, AoR

Mr. K. V. Mohan, AoR
Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AoR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv.
Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv.
Ms. Vanshika Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Tewari, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Eliza Barr, Adv.
Ms. Anjali Saxena, Adv.
Mr. Govind Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Rajawat, Adv.
Ms. Akansha, AoR

Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AoR Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv.

Mr. S.D. Sanjay Bihar, Advocate General
Mr. Manish Kumar, AoR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv.

Ms. Nidhi Mittal, AoR Mr. Tirupati Gaurav Shahi, Adv.
(For Raipur Municipal Corporation)
Ms. Sugandha Jain, Sc, Adv.
Mr. Prabodh Kumar, AoR
Ms. Aastha Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Gursharan H. Virk, Adv.
Mr. Simranjit H. Virk, Adv.
Ms. Nancy Sheth, Adv.
Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AoR
Ms. Prerana Mohapatra, Adv.
Ms. Priyal Sheth, Adv.
Ms. Prina Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Mohit Paul, AoR Ms. Rangoli Seth, Adv.
Mr. Anup Kumar Rattan, A.G.
Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, D.A.G.
Mr. Inderdeep Kaur Rana, Adv.
Ms. Tamanna Kavdia, Adv.
Mr. Anurag Pratyush Sahay, AoR
(For State of H.P.)

Ms. Pallavi Langar, AoR Ms. Anushka Raghunath, Adv.
Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv.
Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashritsai Torgal, Adv.
Mr. Abhishekh Singh, Adv.
For M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AoR
Mr. K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G.
Mr. Dhirendra Singh Parmar, A.A.G.
Mr. Suyash Guru, Adv.
Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, AoR Mr. Suyash Mohan Guru, Adv.

Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AoR Mr. Astik Gupta, Adv.

Dr. Milind Sathe, Advocate General
Mr. H. K. Chaturvedi, AoR Mrs. Anjali Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Sagar Chaturvedi, Adv.

Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AoR Mr. Karun Shamra, Adv.
Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv.
Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv.

Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate General
Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AoR Mr. Aditya S. Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Upendra Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Z.H. Isaac Haiding, Adv.
Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.
Mr. Daniel Stone Lyngdoh, Adv.
Ms. Marbiang Khongwir, Adv.
(For State of Meghalaya)

Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AoR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv.
Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv.
Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Adv.

Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, AoR Dr. Niranjan Moharana, Adv.
Mr. Amitabh Panda, Adv.
Ms. Laxmi, Adv.
Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G.
Ms. Shalini Singh, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, AoR
Mr. Brijender Chahhar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ronak Karanpuria, AoR Mr. Rohit Gautam, Adv.
Ms. Shreerupa Hota, Adv.
Ms. Khusbhoo Sinha, Adv.
Ms. Angel, Adv.
Mr. Sameer Malik, Adv.
Mr. Kartik, Adv.
(For Jaipur Development Authority and
Jaipur Municipal Corporation)

Mr. Basava Prabhu S Patil, Adv. Gen.for State Of Sikkim, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AoR Ms. Yachna Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Arushi Chopra, Adv.

Ms. Devina Sehgal, AoR Mr. Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Adv.
Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv.
Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv.
Mr. Shashank Singh, AoR

Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AoR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Varij Nayan Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Uddyam Mukherjee, AoR Mr. Swapnil Pattanayak, Adv.
Ms. Kratika Kushwaha, Adv.

Mr. S.D. Sanjay, A.S.G.
Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Praveen Swarup, AoR Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv.
Mr. Prahalad Balaji, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Swarup, Adv.
Ms. Jarna Singh, Adv.
Mr. Yunus Malik, Adv.
Mr. Devesh Maurya, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Rohilla, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi, Adv.
(For MCD)

Mr. Akshay Verma, AoR Mr. Udit, Adv.
Ms. Sushma Verma, Adv.
Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rajneesh Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AoR

Mr. Aravindh S., AoR Mr. Aadithya Aravindh, Adv.
Ms. Anika Bansal, Adv.
Mrs. Aishwray Bhati, A.S.G.
Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv.
Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. A. Deb Kumar, Adv.
Mrs. Madhulika Upadhyay, AoR, Adv.
Miss Madhulika Upadhyay, AoR
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G.
Mr. Rahul Khurana, AoR Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Bhavya Singla, Adv.

Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G.
Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AoR Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Ruchir Ranjan Rai, Adv.
Mr. Ashiwan Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Aditi Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Suraj, Adv.
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G.
Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, A.A.G.
Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AoR Ms. Nidhi Narwal, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Jain, Adv.
Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv.
Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv.
Mr. Rajdeepak Rastogi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sarthak Rastogi, Adv.
Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AoR Mr. Devesh Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Kanishka Mittal, Adv.
Ms. Deepti Rathi, Adv.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Hufeza Ahmadi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Daksh Kadian, Adv.
Ms. Aadya Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Ashray Chopra, Adv.
Mr. Manohar Pratap, AoR

(For Municipal Corporation of Bidhannagar)
Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, AoR Ms. Anupriya Poddar, Adv.
(For Greater Noida)
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shivam Shaksena, Adv.
Mr. Binay Kumar Das, Adv.
(For State of Punjab)
Mr. Rajat Bhardwaj, AAG
Mr. Karan Sharma, AoR

Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AoR (For Applicant)
Dr. K.P. Kylasnatha Pillay, Adv.
Mr. Nitesh Pande, Adv.
Mrs. Rashmi Singhania, AoR
Mr. Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Ruchira Goel, AoR
(For Lucknow Development Authority)
Mr. Abhishek Saket, Adv.
Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AoR Ms. Manisha, Adv.
Ms. Rupali, Adv.
(For State of U.P.)
Mr. Ajay Kumar Misra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AoR

Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AoR
Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv.
Ms. Riya Dhingra, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Anand, Adv.
(For State of Mizoram)
Ms. Shreyasi Kunwar, AoR Ms. Anushka Singh, Adv.
(For NOIDA Authority)
Mr. Rachit Mittal, AoR
Mr. Parish Mishra, Adv.
O R D E R
Heard learned senior counsel(s)/counsel(s) for the parties.
2. At the very outset, we record that despite our specific order, no affidavit has been filed in terms thereof by the following States/Authorities/Union
Territory:
(i) State of Mizoram
(ii) Greater Noida Development Authority
(iii) State of Punjab
(iv) State of Uttarakhand
(v) Union Territory of Lakshadweep
3. There is some confusion with regard to the
authorities who are required to assist the Court in the manner directed. To avoid any misconception, all the States and Union Territories of India, except the State of Tamil Nadu, are impleaded as party respondents through their Chief Secretary/ Administrators.
4. The Municipal Corporation, Manesar, through its Commissioner; the Department of Town and Country Planning, Government of Haryana; and the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation, through its Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary /Secretary concerned, shall also be impleaded as party respondents.
5. Be that as it may, giving them the benefit of doubt on the technical aspect that the States/Union Territories have not been formally impleaded as party respondents, we refrain, for the present, from issuing notices in the contempt proceedings to the Chief Secretaries/Administrators of the aforesaid States and
Union Territories.
6. With regard to the State of Haryana, Mr. Pradeep Dahiya, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, who is present in Court, has assured this Court that within four weeks from today, the orders relating to violations of the building bye-laws and demolition of unauthorised constructions shall be carried out to their logical conclusion.
7. Mr.P.C. Meena, Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan Development Authority, Gurugram, has assured this Court that all encroachments falling within his jurisdiction shall be removed within two weeks from today.
8. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within the time-frame indicated.
9. The aforesaid officers have also assured this Court that all areas falling under their jurisdiction shall be kept free from stray animals in accordance with law. Let the same be ensured within four weeks positively.
10. This direction is extended to all the States and Union Territories to ensure that all public areas throughout India are kept free from stray animals.
11. Coming to the matter relating to the Jaipur Development Authority (“JDA” for short), it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the land use prescribed under the Master Plan is being blatantly violated, inasmuch as areas earmarked for specified activities are being used for other purposes. It has also been brought to our notice that agricultural/open land falling within the jurisdiction of the JDA is first required to be surrendered by the landowner to the JDA, whereafter approval is granted for its development. In certain cases, details whereof have been brought on record through various pleadings, the landowners have surrendered the land to the JDA, yet the JDA has neither approved its use for any other purpose nor prevented encroachments by third parties, who have even raised constructions thereon.
12. If the same is true, the situation is not onlyshocking but also alarming. The matter becomes even more disturbing as although the JDA may have issued notices, the parties concerned have approached the Appellate Tribunal and obtained interim orders, which have continued for considerable periods, without final adjudication. In these circumstances, we issue the following direction:
The Appellate Authority concerned shall pass final orders in the said matters within two weeks from today, positively. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal shall be personally responsible and accountable for any violation of this direction.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the JDA shallcommunicate this order forthwith to the Presiding Officer concerned.
14. Another issue relating to the JDA concerns the useof commercial areas for institutional purposes, causing considerable inconvenience and hardship to the residents. The specific instance relates to coaching institutes operating from commercial areas, despite the Government having already provided dedicated multistoreyed buildings for such purposes. Instead of relocating the coaching institutes, those buildings are now reportedly being allotted to other institutions.
15. Learned counsel for the JDA is directed to obtaincomplete instructions and place on record the specific remedial and corrective measures taken in this regard within three weeks from today.
16. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the JDAsubmits that I.A. No. 192811 of 2026 has been filed for impleading the Jaipur Development Authority as a party respondent. The said Interlocutory Application is allowed.
17. The Jaipur Development Authority through itsCommissioner, shall file a personal affidavit before the next date of hearing indicating compliance.
18. We make it clear that if any building has beenspecially earmarked and constructed for the purposes of relocating coaching institutes or other educational institutions, any allotment or settlement made in favour of any other person shall be subject to the final orders passed in these proceedings.
19. Coming to Lucknow, though the Lucknow DevelopmentAuthority was not originally a party, an affidavit has been filed along with an application seeking its impleadment. Mr. Prathmesh Kumar, Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, is present in Court. Accordingly, the Lucknow Development Authority through its ViceChairman is impleaded as a party respondent.
20. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that a recent tragedy claimed the lives of 15 students in a building where commercial activity was being carried on. It is submitted that pursuant to the said incident, action has now been taken and the building has since been
demolished. The learned Amicus Curiae further points out that a demolition order had originally been passed on 10.05.2016; however, on 05.07.2016, the very authority who had passed the demolition order recalled it on a technical ground. Thereafter, no further action was taken until the occurrence of the tragedy.
21. We are informed that a Special Investigation Team(SIT) was constituted and has submitted its report. Let the report be produced before this Court in a sealed cover on the next date of hearing.
22. This Court is constrained to issue notice in thecontempt proceedings, as it is an admitted position that no effective action has been taken against those who have blatantly violated the sanctioned land use prescribed under the Master Plan. The Vice-Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, shall remain personally present on the next date of hearing to show cause as to why appropriate orders should not be passed against him for non-compliance with the orders of this Court.
23. In terms of our previous order, Ms. Kakarla Usha, Additional Chief Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, State of Tamil Nadu, has filed an affidavit. Ms. Kavitha Nithyanandan Rameshwar, learned Additional Advocate General has explained the factual matrix in detail. We have gone through the affidavit and are satisfied that the action taken by the officer concerned was bona fide. She acted with due promptitude and ensured that the action was taken not only in accordance with law but also in compliance with our earlier orders. We place on record our appreciation for the officer concerned and hope that she will continue to maintain the same level of diligence in future.
24. Being satisfied with the explanation offered in theaffidavit, the observations recorded earlier against the said officer stand expunged. She is also exempted from further personal appearance.
25. Learned counsel appearing for the Greater Chennai Municipal Corporation (GCMC) submits that though the competent authority has passed penal orders, including demolition orders, the same are pending before the Appellate/Revisional Authorities. It is further submitted that approximately 700 such matters are pending and their disposal may take some time.
26. Having regard to the aforesaid, we request the State of Tamil Nadu to authorise at least five additional
officers of the same rank to function as
Appellate/Revisional Authorities under the relevant statute, in addition to their existing duties. We expect that the maximum possible number of cases shall be disposed of before the next date of hearing.
27. As pointed out by the learned amicus curiae, the affidavit filed by the GCMC requires certain clarifications/corrections. The same be carried out within one week from today.
28. By way of extraordinary indulgence, all those States which have not yet deposited the costs of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand) shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) by tomorrow, i.e.,
05.08.2026, failing which, notices in the contempt proceedings shall be issued to the concerned Chief Secretaries.
29. The personal appearance of Mr. Pradeep Dahiya, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gurugram, Haryana and Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Municipal Commissioner, Lucknow Municipal Corporation is dispensed with, for the present.
30. As the hearing remained inconclusive, list the matter tomorrow, i.e., 05.08.2026 at 2.00 p.m.
(SACHIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) (SAPNA BISHT)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (SH)
(POOJA SHARMA) (ANJALI PANWAR)
AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR