New Filters: Real Estate

If you are not happy with the results, please do another search

JSA successfully represented an Allottee before the Telangana High Court in securing an interim stay against an impugned order passed by the RERA Appellate Tribunal

Judge's gavel with apartment buildings in the background, legal documents on desk.

By an interim order dated April 16, 2026 (“Interim Order”), the High Court for the State of Telangana (“Telangana HC”) granted an interim stay in an interlocutory application filed by Mudrakartha Veenadhari (“Appellant” or “Allottee”). The Court stayed the operation and effect of an impugned order dated February 11, 2026. This impugned order had been passed by the Appellate Tribunal in T.A. No. 42 of 2025. The application (I.A. No. 2 of 2026) was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C), pending the disposal of the main appeal, SA RERA No. 36 of 2026.

The Appellant, acting as the Original Complainant, brought the petition against M/s. R.R. Konstructions (“Respondent”), the Original Promoter.

Upon reviewing the petition, the Court, presided over by the Honourable Sri Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, accepted the contentions at the interim stage and the Court ordered an interim stay on the operation and effect of the Appellate Tribunal’s impugned order dated 11.02.2026.

This matter involves a substantial question of law if Section 3(2) of the RERA Act is to be read conjunctively or disjunctively and the Telangana High Court is to decide on this, which, if decided, will help a lot of Allottees in seeking reliefs from the Promoters/Developers.

The matter was led by Harshavardhan Abburi, Partner, supported by the Constitutional & Administrative Law Litigation Team, including Poojitha Babbepalli, Principal Associate; Manoj Bhukya, Associate; Pooja Gandhi, Associate; and Phanindranath Chowdary Ponneganti, Associate.

Tags AllotteeRights, ConsumerProtection, HarshavardhanAbburi, IndiaLaw, InterimStay, JSALegalAdvisory, LegalPrecedent, LegalUpdates, LitigationSuccess, PropertyLaw, RealEstateLaw, RERA, RERAAct, TelanganaHighCourt

JSA advises Sapthrishi Buildcon on its acquisition of prime property AVM Studios in Chennai

JSA Advocates & Solicitors (JSA) represented Sapthrishi Buildcon (part of the VVA Hotels group) in relation to its acquisition of the iconic AVM Studios property, a landmark 2.15-acre parcel located in the prime Saligramam locality of Chennai. The property was acquired from the family members of legendary film producer A.V. Meiyyapan. The total deal value is estimated at approximately ₹198 crores.

JSA conducted an extensive title due diligence exercise, including comprehensive litigation searches across relevant courts and registries. The Firm provided end-to-end support on the transaction, including structuring advice, drafting and negotiating transaction documentation, and seamless coordination through to successful closing.

This transaction further strengthens JSA’s market-leading real estate practice in South India and underscores its capability in handling high-value, complex acquisitions involving heritage properties in prime Chennai micro-markets.

The JSA team was led by Aravind Raj, Partner with support from Priyanka Ponna, Senior Associate andShreya Subramanian, Associate.

Tags AVM Studios Acquisition, Chennai Property Deal, Chennai Real Estate, Corporate Real Estate India, Heritage Property Acquisition, Heritage Real Estate India, High Value Acquisition, JSA Deal Announcement, Litigation Search India, Property Transaction India, Real Estate Due Diligence, Real Estate Law India, Saligramam Property, Sapthrishi Buildcon, Title Due Diligence India

JSA advises on acquisition of HUL’s prime property in Coonoor

JSA Advocates & Solicitors (JSA) advised VTLLP in relation to its acquisition of a Tea Estate and a Historic British Era Mansion located in Coonoor, Tamil Nadu. The property was originally owned by Hindustan Unilever Limited since 1963 and has been successfully acquired as part of this transaction.

JSA undertook an extensive title due diligence exercise to ensure a clear and marketable title. The Firm provided comprehensive end-to-end support on the transaction, including structuring advice, drafting and negotiating transaction documentation, and coordinating all aspects through to successful closing.

The JSA team was led by Aravind Raj, Partner with support from Priyanka Ponna, Senior Associate andPadmanaban R.K., Associate.

Tags Coonoor Real Estate, Corporate Real Estate India, Historic Mansion Acquisition, HUL Property Acquisition, JSA Deal Announcement, Property Acquisition India, Property Transaction India, Real Estate Due Diligence, Real Estate Law India, Real Estate Transactions, Tamil Nadu Real Estate, Tea Estate Transaction, Title Due Diligence India, Transaction Advisory India, VTLLP Acquisition

JSA Prism | Real Estate | March 2026

Please click here to download the Prism as a PDF.

Supreme Court of India clarifies scope of re-determination under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

In an important decision on the interpretation of Section 28-A[1] of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“LA Act”), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in Andanayyaa and Ors. vs. Deputy Chief Engineer and Ors.[2], has clarified that: (a) the expression ‘Court’ under Section 28-A of the LA Act includes appellate courts such as the High Court and the Supreme Court; and (b) re-determination of compensation can be sought on the basis of the final appellate award.

The Supreme Court further held that a subsequent application under Section 28-A of the LA Act based on an enhanced award by the appellate court is maintainable, particularly in light of the doctrine of merger and the beneficial object of the LA Act.

Brief facts

Lands belonging to the appellants were acquired under the LA Act for a railway project. The Land Acquisition Officer (“LAO”) awarded compensation at INR 40,000 (Indian Rupees forty thousand) per acre.
Certain landowners sought a reference under Section 18[3] of the LA Act, resulting in enhancement of compensation by the reference court to INR 2,00,000 (Indian Rupees two lakh) per acre.
The appellants, who had not sought reference, filed an application under Section 28-A of the LA Act seeking re-determination based on the reference court’s award. The same was allowed.
Subsequently, the High Court, in appeals filed by other landowners, further enhanced compensation to INR 3,50,000 (Indian Rupees three lakh fifty thousand) per acre.
The appellants thereafter filed a second application under Section 28-A of the LA Act seeking parity with the enhanced compensation granted by the High Court.
The second application was rejected by the LAO and such rejection was ultimately upheld by the High Court, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues

Whether re-determination under Section 28-A of the LA Act can be based on an appellate court’s award (High Court/Supreme Court)?
Whether a second application under Section 28-A of the LA Act is maintainable after an earlier re-determination?
Whether the doctrine of merger applies to compensation awards under the LA Act?

Findings and analysis

In the present case, the Supreme Court had initially indicated that the issues involved may warrant reference to a Constitution Bench in view of the divergence in the decisions of 3 (three) judge benches. However, upon an examination of the statutory scheme, prior precedents, and the doctrine of merger, the Supreme Court found that no real conflict exists between the earlier decisions. Accordingly, it declined to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench and proceeded to settle the legal position through a purposive interpretation of Section 28-A.

Issue 1: Scope of ‘Court’ under Section 28-A of the LA Act

The Supreme Court undertook a purposive interpretation of Section 28-A of the LA Act and held that the term ‘Court’ cannot be restricted only to the reference court. On a conjoint reading of Sections 3(d)[4], 28-A, and 54[5] of the LA Act, appellate courts (High Court and Supreme Court) are also covered within its ambit.

Any contrary interpretation would defeat the object of Section 28-A, which is to ensure parity among similarly situated landowners. Further, since the LA Act contemplates passing of one acquisition award, the term ‘Court’, as used in Section 28-A, includes appellate courts as well.

The Supreme Court emphasised that once an appellate court enhances compensation, the earlier award ceases to exist.

Issue 2: Maintainability of second application under Section 28-A of the LA Act

The Supreme Court rejected the narrow interpretation that only 1 (one) application under Section 28-A of the LA Act is permissible. The Supreme Court held that the provision must be interpreted in light of its beneficial object. Where compensation is further enhanced by an appellate court, denying similarly situated landowners the benefit would lead to unjust discrimination.

Accordingly, a second application based on the appellate award is maintainable.

The Supreme Court distinguished earlier precedents that limited multiple applications and clarified that such interpretation cannot override the statutory purpose.

Issue 3: Applicability of doctrine of merger

The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of merger and held that once an appellate court passes an order, the original award merges into the appellate decree. There cannot be multiple operative awards governing the same subject matter at the same time. Therefore, the ‘award of the Court’ under Section 28-A of the LA Act must be understood as the final adjudicated award, including determination by the appellate court.

The Supreme Court relied on settled law that the appellate decree alone attains finality and enforceability.

Issue 4: Earlier judgments

The Supreme Court also addressed the contention that certain earlier judgments (particularly Ramsingbhai Jerambhai vs. State of Gujarat[6] restrict the scope of Section 28-A of the LA Act and bar subsequent applications.

The Supreme Court clarified that such reliance is misplaced. The Supreme Court notes that Ramsingbhai judgment (supra) failed to consider the earlier 3 (three) judge bench decision in Union of India vs. Pradeep Kumari[7]. Since the coordinate bench failed to consider a binding precedent, the judgment in Ramsingbhai (supra) is per incuriam.

Conclusion

This judgment expands the scope of Section 28-A of the LA Act by recognising awards of appellate courts as valid ground for re-determination and by allowing subsequent applications to ensure parity among landowners.

The ruling reiterates the principle that the law of compensation under the LA Act must prioritise equity and uniformity over procedural rigidity.

The LA Act has dual nature, expropriatory and beneficial. This decision is a marked shift towards a beneficial and rights-oriented interpretation of Section 28-A. It resolves ambiguity on whether enhancements by appellate courts can result in re-determination.

However, the ruling also raise concerns regarding finality and administrative burden. From a practical standpoint, the land authorities will now need to await appellate and final outcome before concluding Section 28-A proceedings. There may be an increase in re-determination, particularly in large scale legacy acquisitions where the landowners keep challenging the acquisition through years.

This Prism has been prepared by:

Amar Gupta
Joint Managing Partner

Pranav Tanwar
Senior Associate

Abhay Pratap Singh
Associate

For more details, please contact [email protected].

[1] Section 28-A allows landowners who did not challenge the original compensation to seek the same enhanced compensation later, if another landowner covered by the same acquisition notification succeeds in getting a higher amount from a court.

[2] SLP(C) No. 2587-2593 of 2021 (decided on March 25, 2026)

[3] Section 18 of the LA Act allows a landowner, who is dissatisfied with the compensation fixed by the Government, to approach a civil court to seek higher compensation.

[4] Section 3(d) of the LA Act defines ‘Court’ to mean the main civil court of original jurisdiction (i.e., the first court that hears such disputes), unless a special judicial officer is appointed.

[5] Section 54 of the LA Act provides for appeals against awards made by the reference court, first to the High Court and thereafter to the Supreme Court.

[6] (2018) 16 SCC 445 (decided on April 24, 2018)

[7] (1995) 2 SCC 736 (decided on September 12, 2002)

Tags Acquisition Proceedings India, Compensation Claims India, Enhanced Compensation India, Government Acquisitions India, Infrastructure Projects India, Land Acquisition India, Land Laws India, Legal Developments India, Litigation India, Project Developers India, Property Acquisition India, Real Estate Disputes India, Real Estate Law India, Section 28A India, Supreme Court India

JSA Prism | Insolvency | March 2026

Abstract arrangement of Indian Rupee symbols forming a circular structure with reflections and surrounding smoke.

Please click here to download the Prism as a PDF.

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal reinforces reverse insolvency resolution approach for real estate projects

In the recent case of Navin M Raheja vs. Vipul Jain and Ors.[1], the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (“NCLAT”) has held that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“CIRP”) against a real estate company should be project-based and should not be extended to all ongoing projects of the real estate company.

The decision of the NCLAT reaffirms and extends the principle of ‘reverse CIRP’, a judicially developed concept meant to revive real estate companies. Unlike in a traditional CIRP under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), a ‘reverse CIRP’ allows promoters of the real estate company to infuse funds into the distressed company and continue development together with the insolvency resolution professional and allows project-based CIRP instead of CIRP against the corporate debtor as a whole.

The decision of the NCLAT goes a long way in providing clarity to real estate companies, homebuyers and other stakeholders with respect to the initiation of CIRP against real estate companies. It further establishes that courts prioritise balancing the interests of the corporate debtor and the homebuyers in real estate insolvencies for ensuring survival of real estate companies and completion of projects, in line with the objectives of rehabilitation and asset maximisation under the IBC.