Manupatra Academy

Explore. Learn. Upskill. All Things Law

Courses, Cases, Research, and Resources in One Place

New

Internships

Opportunities : Playbook : Videos

Learn More

Law Notes (1^st - 5^th Year)

Structured notes with flashcards to help law students grasp core subjects quickly.

Know More

Manupatra Certified Legal Research Program

Module-based learning : Legal research skills : Certification test

Learn More

Courses

Structured learning : Practice-oriented modules : Different stages of legal practice

Learn More

News and Recent Judgment Gist

News
Gist

1. Supreme Court reserves verdict on challenge to Ayodhya housing scheme land acquisition

Supreme Court reserves verdict on challenge to Ayodhya housing scheme land acquisition

The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on a petition by the Shri Saryu Nagar Vikas Samiti challenging the acquisition of land for a residential housing scheme in Ayodhya. The Samiti appealed against an August 6 order of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, which directed the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad to determine compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement benefits for compulsory land acquisition under the Uttar Pradesh Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965. The High Court asked the authority to address these issues in line with legal principles set out in its judgment, including those under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana heard senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the petitioner and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati for the Uttar Pradesh government and its department. Sankaranarayanan argued that authorities could not restrict benefits for affected landowners to monetary compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement while disregarding other safeguards under the 2013 Act, including provisions on social impact assessment, the use of previously acquired land and the acquisition of multi-crop agricultural land. The bench observed that social impact assessment could not be brushed aside lightly but cautioned that it should not become a millstone around the neck of the state government, and highlighted the need to consider public interest in development projects already under way. Sankaranarayanan contended that the High Court judgment had effectively restricted the Samiti's rights to compensation under the 2013 Act even though the law provided wider protections for landowners, and said the distinction made in earlier judgments between acquisitions initiated before the 2013 law came into force and those begun later was relevant. He submitted that the acquisition in this case was initiated after the law came into force but its provisions had not been fully applied. The Chief Justice questioned the claim that the High Court had restricted the Samiti's rights, pointing out that its judgment provided for the benefits under the 2013 Act, or at least the principles behind them, to be applied. Sankaranarayanan maintained that the dispute went beyond compensation and rehabilitation to safeguards applicable when deciding whether and how land could be acquired. Referring to Section 8(1)(d) of the 2013 Act, he said the government was required to ensure that land acquired earlier in the area had not remained unused before acquiring more land. He told the bench that three residential housing schemes involved the acquisition of 1,407 acres, of which only 70 acres had been used, and said about 1,300 acres remained surplus under the first two schemes and that authorities had not provided adequate details about how that land had been used. He said the challenge was limited to the third scheme and urged the court to stop it from proceeding until the social impact assessment process, which had been started and later discontinued, was completed. Bhati maintained that authorities had provided, or were providing, all benefits available under the 2013 Act, including enhanced compensation, additional payment and other applicable entitlements.

2. Gujarat High Court seeks action against Vadodara collector over affidavit remarks

Gujarat High Court seeks action against Vadodara collector over affidavit remarks

The Gujarat High Court criticised Vadodara Collector Anil Dhamelia over statements in an affidavit concerning a former judicial member and in-charge chairman of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, calling them unnecessary and unwarranted, according to Press Trust of India. Justice Niral Mehta, in an order passed last Friday, directed the Additional Chief Secretary of the General Administration Department to propose further action against Dhamelia by the next hearing on November 27. The court was hearing a petition challenging the collector's August 17, 2026 order on an application seeking permission to use land for non-agricultural purposes under Section 65 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879. The collector had cited three revision applications pending before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal; the petitioner told the High Court that no such revision applications were pending and argued that closing the application in that manner was contrary to settled law. The court then directed the collector to file an affidavit, in which he made remarks about the former judicial officer. The High Court said the collector's account concerning the former in-charge chairman was completely uncalled for and completely unwarranted, and that the statements prima facie amounted to casting aspersions on the former judicial officer. The bench said the narration of such facts on oath, being completely irrelevant, was not only disturbing but also scandalous in nature, and that while any order can be assailed in accordance with law, it was unacceptable to name the author of an order sought to be assailed in entirely different proceedings. The court said that merely because a judicial officer had been relieved from service following observations and strictures passed by the High Court, all orders passed by him would not automatically lose their validity unless set aside in accordance with law, and that a judicial order could not be ignored under any circumstances merely by citing the name of the judicial officer who passed it. The court told Dhamelia, who attended the hearing virtually, that his apology would not be accepted and that a departmental inquiry would be ordered against him. The court orally asked whether he had the slightest idea what he had committed, said he was making aspersions against a judicial officer by saying the officer was not considering the matter in true perspective, and warned him not to dare make such statements in future. In its order, the court said the collector's mechanical apology did not show genuine remorse or provide any assurance that such conduct would not be repeated. The court also noted that dozens of the collector's orders on applications seeking permission for non-agricultural use had come before it, and that in all such cases the collector had disregarded legal principles laid down by the court and decided the applications according to his own understanding. The High Court further noted that Dhamelia was already facing contempt proceedings in which a division bench had framed charges against him through an order dated April 29, and that despite those proceedings his approach appeared to have remained unchanged. The court made the Additional Chief Secretary of the General Administration Department a respondent and directed the official to inform it about the findings or conclusions reached and any further action proposed against the collector by November 27. The High Court said it would consider the proposed action against Dhamelia at the next hearing.

3. Supreme Court rejects petition against 6 AIADMK MLAs who joined TVK

The Supreme Court rejected a petition against 6 AIADMK MLAs who joined TVK. The Madras High Court on October 13 upheld the decision of the Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker.

4. Centre explores legal framework to plug regulatory gap in OTT content

The Centre is exploring a legal framework to plug a regulatory gap in OTT content. At present, OTT platforms are governed by Part III of the Information Technology Rules, 2021.

5. Odisha files contempt petition in Supreme Court against Andhra Pradesh over Kotia panchayat election notification

Odisha files contempt petition in Supreme Court against Andhra Pradesh over Kotia panchayat election notification

The Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission issued a notification on October 19, 2026, for elections to the Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies and Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituencies, scheduled for November 3. The decision to hold the elections in the Kotia group of villages, whose jurisdiction has been disputed by Andhra Pradesh and Odisha since Independence, triggered protests across the political spectrum in Odisha. The Biju Janata Dal, Congress, and Bharatiya Janata Party accused Andhra Pradesh of undermining Odisha’s territorial integrity. The Odisha government said on October 23, 2026, that it had filed a contempt of court petition against the Andhra Pradesh government in the Supreme Court challenging the notification for the forthcoming election in Kotia. As many as 21 villages in the Kotia group, under Pottangi Tahasil of Odisha’s Koraput district, have been at the centre of a territorial dispute with Andhra Pradesh since 1955. According to an Odisha government brief, Odisha exercised administrative control over these villages from 1936. The dispute surfaced in 1955, two years after the formation of Andhra Province, when Andhra Pradesh officials attempted to collect land revenue from the villages. Odisha protested through its Chief Secretary, but Andhra Pradesh countered that it had been collecting revenue there since 1947 and that residents had participated in the State’s 1954 elections. In 1959, Andhra Pradesh cited a 1942 boundary demarcation by M. Gilby, Assistant Director of Survey, Madras Province, claiming it had been carried out with Odisha’s consent. Odisha rejected the claim, arguing that Gilby had wrongly assumed his demarcation conformed to the Government of India (Constitution of Orissa) Order, 1936. Both States held general elections in the disputed area in 1967. Amid the impasse, the then Union Home Minister convened a conciliatory meeting on September 12, 1968. It failed to resolve the dispute, with the Minister reportedly observing that Odisha’s claim would be difficult to sustain in view of the acceptance of Gilby’s report. Odisha moved the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution on November 14, 1968. Talks between the two Chief Ministers in 1978 also proved inconclusive. On March 30, 2006, the Supreme Court disposed of the original suit, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute because of the proviso to Article 131. It directed that the status quo should be maintained until the dispute was taken up by an appropriate authority in accordance with law. According to legal experts, issues under Article 131 of the Constitution are resolved only by Parliament. Odisha’s review petition in 2006 and curative petition in 2007 were also dismissed, effectively closing the door to further judicial scrutiny through those proceedings. The dispute resurfaced in 2021 when Andhra Pradesh, on February 13, 2021, notified a Gram Panchayat election in Phatusineri (Pattuchennuru). Odisha approached the Supreme Court with a contempt petition, alleging a violation of the status quo order. Andhra Pradesh subsequently notified elections to MPTC and ZPTC seats in Kotia, scheduled for April 8, 2021, prompting another contempt petition by Odisha seeking an injunction against the neighbouring State and its officials. The two Chief Ministers met again in 2021 amid renewed tensions, but the talks skirted the contentious jurisdictional issue and ended with a general assurance of cooperation. In 2023, Odisha again approached the Supreme Court seeking adjudication of the Kotia dispute. In the latest proceedings, Odisha has filed its response to objections raised by Andhra Pradesh. Fabi Rasheed, Koraput Sub-Collector, said the District Collector filed a fresh contempt petition in the Supreme Court, alleging Andhra Pradesh violated the 2006 status quo order.

1. Gir Vanvaso Resort vs. Pancard Clubs Limited (22.07.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1207/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the dispute between Gir Vanvaso Resort and Pancard Clubs Limited, focusing on the ownership and possession of a resort under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proces

2. Anumandala Rajesh Reddy vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. (24.08.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1206/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the appeals by Anumandala Rajesh Reddy against the State of Karnataka and others, focusing on whether the High Court erred in quashing proceedings initiated by Red

3. Indroneel Goho vs. Razouvonuo Thong and Ors. (29.09.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1203/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed the appeal by Indroneel Goho against Razouvonuo Thong and others, focusing on whether the criminal proceedings for cheating under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC s

4. Zaki Ullah Khan vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (15.07.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1202/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether the deed granting fishing rights to Zaki Ullah Khan constituted a lease of immovable property, thus requiring registration and stamp duty. The Collector of

5. Rasilaben and Ors. vs. Dinesh Deumal Harani and Ors. (21.07.2026 - SC)(MANU/SC/1201/2026)

The Supreme Court of India addressed whether Rasilaben and others should be impleaded as necessary parties in a suit filed by Dinesh Deumal Harani, who sought a declaration of his status as a tenant o

View More Gist.. View More News..

Law Students Hub

Notes : Flashcards : Landmark Cases & more…

Learn More

New

Legal Glossary

Complex terms decoded : Easy explanations

Learn More

On-demand Courses

Recorded classes : Comprehensive reading material :Quiz

Learn More

Self-Paced Certification

Courses to upskill or reskill

Learn More

Webinars

Recordings of experts views :Diverse topics

Learn More

Law Teachers Hub

Readings : Resources for legal educators

Learn More

Legal Posts

Explainers : Blogs : Articles : Case Analysis

Learn More

Survey Reports

AI Adoption : Technology in law

Learn More

Illustrated Cases

Legal Design : Supreme Court Cases : Multilingual Exploration

Learn More

New

Case Infographics

Quickly understand key facts, court decisions, and legal principles through easy-to-follow infographics.

Know More

Our Partners

Why Join Manupatra Academy

Brought to you by Manupatra the leaders in legal tech domain.

Curated Resources: A vast repository of meticulously compiled resources tailored for educators and learners.
Diverse Courses: An array of courses designed to cater to various levels of expertise, from beginners to advanced.
User-Friendly Interface: Accessible on any device, our intuitive interface ensures seamless navigation.

What Our Learners Say

User-Friendly Interface: Accessible on any device, our intuitive interface ensures seamless navigation.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

It was extremely beneficial and practical… really helped me understand the nuances of civil drafting and boosted my confidence in preparing real pleadings.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

The sessions were so insightful and well-structured… the faculty explained every concept with patience and clarity, which made learning much easier.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

Honestly, it was a great learning experience… the course covered everything from plaints to petitions in such a smooth and engaging way.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

The workshop was very hands-on and practical… I really liked the live feedback and the real examples shared during drafting exercises.

Certification Courses 3-Day Civil Drafting Workshop

Very well conducted and informative… I just wish it could’ve been a bit longer because the sessions were that helpful.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

The session was honestly eye-opening! I never realized how much time I was wasting on formatting until now.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

Really practical and focused on what lawyers actually need… I can already see how it’ll save hours in my daily work.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

The trainer made even the technical tools so easy to understand… and I loved how they used real pleading examples.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

Very relevant for lawyers and interns alike… it bridges the tech gap we all face while working on documents.

Certification Courses Mastering Microsoft Word for Legal Work

A concise and super useful masterclass… I now feel confident managing citations, templates, and formatting with ease.