Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Friday, 07 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2019-02-06 allowed

ER. K. ARUMUGAM vs V. BALAKRISHNAN

Bench: 2 — R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy

In Brief

The TWAD Board entered agricultural land in 1991 with the owner's consent for water supply infrastructure. After a dispute over compensation, the High Court in 2016 directed the Board to ensure fair and reasonable payment. The District Collector fixed compensation at Rs.200/- per sq. ft. based on 2012 guideline value; the Board paid accordingly. The land owner filed a contempt petition, and the Single Judge, purporting to punish disobedience, unilaterally raised compensation to Rs.600/- per sq. ft. The Supreme Court allowed the Board's appeal, holding that contempt jurisdiction cannot exceed the original order's scope and cannot issue supplemental directions; since the Board had complied with the original order, entertaining contempt was an error.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Contempt of Court Civil Procedure Land Compensation Administrative Law

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login