DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DIRECTOR REHABILITATION TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs VIRENDRA DUTT KHANDURI . — C.A. No. 4173/2014
Case under Section III-A. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010067922008
Filing Date
07-Mar-2008
Registration No
C.A. No. 4173/2014
Diary Number
6792/2008
Order Date
03-Apr-2019
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Allowed
Last updated 01-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DIRECTOR REHABILITATION TEHRI HYDRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Adv. DINESH KUMAR GARG
Respondent(s)
-
1.VIRENDRA DUTT KHANDURI .
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
03-Apr-2019
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Apr-2019
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
-
02-Apr-2019
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
-
28-Mar-2019
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
-
27-Mar-2019
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
-
26-Mar-2019
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
-
14-Mar-2019
Ordinary
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
-
15-Nov-2017
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
15-Nov-2017
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
07-Sep-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Sep-2015
Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Sep-2015
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Feb-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Jan-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Jan-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Jan-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Mar-2008
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 4173/2014
Summary of C.A. No. 004173/2014 The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Tehri Hydro Development Corporation on April 3, 2019. The respondents, whose properties were acquired for Tehri Dam construction and were allotted rehabilitation plots, had sought house construction assistance under the 1998 Rehabilitation Policy but surrendered their plots for cash compensation instead. The Court held that respondents who received cash assistance and undertook no construction were ineligible for additional house construction assistance under the policy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts