RAJESHBHAI MAHENDRABAHI vs GUJ.INDUSL.DEVT.CORP.. — SLP(C) No. 22927 - 22928/2009
Case under Section III-B. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010230372009
Filing Date
04-Aug-2009
Registration No
SLP(C) No. 22927 - 22928/2009
Diary Number
23037/2009
Order Date
08-Nov-2011
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 06-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.RAJESHBHAI MAHENDRABAHI
Adv. K. V. SREEKUMAR (Dead / Retired / Elevated)
Respondent(s)
-
1.GUJ.INDUSL.DEVT.CORP..
Adv. ANIP SACHTHEY (Dead / Retired / Elevated)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-Nov-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Sep-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
17-Aug-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Jul-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Jul-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Apr-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Mar-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
21-Feb-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Jan-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-May-2010
ROPView PDF
-
12-Apr-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Feb-2010
ROPView PDF
-
19-Feb-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
25-Jan-2010
ROPView PDF
-
25-Jan-2010
ROPView PDF
-
12-Jan-2010
ROPView PDF
-
05-Jan-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Dec-2009
ROPView PDF
-
15-Dec-2009
ROPView PDF
-
06-Nov-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Sep-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Sep-2009
ROPView PDF
-
16-Sep-2009
ROPView PDF
-
04-Aug-2009
Case filed
Registration No. SLP(C) No. 22927 - 22928/2009
-
04-Aug-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
20-Apr-2009
ROPView PDF
-
13-Apr-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Apr-2009
ROPView PDF
-
09-Feb-2009
ROPView PDF
-
27-Jan-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
Summary of SLP(C) No. 22927-22928/2009 Case: Rajeshbhai Mahendrabhai v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions, upholding the Gujarat High Court's judgment fixing compensation for acquired land at Rs.65/- per square meter with statutory benefits and Rs.700/- per tree. Key Facts: The Court affirmed that the High Court properly relied on two comparable sale instances (Exhibits 174 and 175) involving smaller land parcels and correctly applied a 40% deduction for development costs, rejecting arguments that small parcel sales cannot determine market value for large tract acquisitions. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts