The Supreme Court dismissed Infosys Limited's plea challenging enhanced compensation awarded to a landowner’s family for land acquired in Mysuru for the company’s campus expansion.

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan rejected Infosys’ delay of over 160 days in filing the appeal, dismissing the excuse of translating Kannada documents.

The dispute, dating back to 2005, involved a compensation hike from ₹4.85 lakh per acre to ₹220 per sq ft by the Mysuru reference court, upheld by the Karnataka High Court, citing industrial potential.

Infosys’ challenge was rejected at both the High Court and Supreme Court levels.

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that an agreement to sell or a General Power of Attorney (GPA) does not transfer ownership title of property, emphasising that only a legally registered sale deed confers such rights.

The ruling prevents misuse of GPAs and informal agreements to circumvent property laws and tax obligations.

The court directed authorities and buyers to strictly adhere to the Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act to ensure transparent and legally valid transactions.

Resultantly, the Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

[Ramesh Chand (D) Thr. Lrs. v Suresh Chand and Anr.]

Producer Boney Kapoor has approached the Madras High Court to claim ownership of an East Coast Road (ECR) property in Chennai, originally registered in the name of his late wife, actor Sridevi.

The petition challenges an order that cancelled the property’s title deed, citing legal irregularities. Kapoor argues the land was rightfully purchased and seeks to restore his family’s ownership.

The orders were passed while disposing of a writ petition filed by the producer seeking a direction to the Chengalpattu Collector and Tambaram Taluk Tahsildar to dispose of a representation made by him, for cancelling the legal heirship certificate.

The Supreme Court has held that when crucial facts lie within a party’s personal knowledge and failure to step into the witness box invites adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra ruled in a property inheritance dispute involving the validity of a woman’s marriage to one Dasabovi.

The defendant, despite being present in court, avoided the witness box and offered no explanation.

The Court, confirming the High Court’s decision, held that such deliberate silence can amount to calculated evasion, tipping the balance in favour of the plaintiffs as legitimate heirs.

The Kerala High Court ruled that denying property tax exemption to unaided schools does not violate Article 14.

Justice Ziyad Rahman explained that government-owned, managed, and aided schools provide education at minimal or no fees, funded by the state, justifying their tax exemption.

In contrast, unaided schools charge fees and thus do not qualify for exemption. The Court held this classification as reasonable and aligned with the objectives of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Kerala Municipality Act amendments.

The petition by unaided educational institutions challenging the removal of tax exemption was accordingly dismissed.

[Rev. Fr. Dr. Abraham Thalothil v State of Kerala]

The Orissa High Court held that a lessee is the true owner of a structure constructed on leased land and the lessor cannot claim ownership over it. The case concerned a mobile tower built under a 2014 lease deed. 

The Court observed that the doctrine of dual ownership applies, where the lessor remains the owner of the land while the lessee owns structures raised with permission.

The Court noted that the petitioner-lessor had no locus to challenge demolition orders since the aggrieved party was the lessee.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

[Nirmala Sahu v Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) & Ors.]

Haryana RERA’s Panchkula Bench issued arrest warrants against Parsvnath Developers’ directors Rajeev Jain, Pradeep Kumar Jain, and Sanjeev Kumar Jain for failing to pay Rs. 8.6 lakh compensation to a homebuyer as ordered in 2022.

The directors avoided service of notices and did not respond to show cause orders under Order XXI Rule 41(2) CPC.

Despite sufficient funds, the company delayed payment, causing prejudice to the homebuyer.

The Authority ordered their arrest and three months’ civil imprisonment upon payment of Rs. 100 per day per director as subsistence allowance. Action against director Deepa Gupta, residing abroad, will proceed separately.

The Delhi High Court held that a Memorandum of Family Settlement (MFS) need not be registered as it does not create new rights but only records the manner of enjoyment of property.

A Division Bench of Justices Kshetarpal and Harish  Shankar ruled that once family members’ shares are identified through an MFS, a subsequent builder’s agreement for construction cannot modify or override those shares. 

The Court rejected the appellants’ contention that the MFS required registration and stamping, citing Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1976).

The Court further clarified that modification under Section 62 of the Contract Act was not applicable. The appeal was dismissed.

[Suman Singh Virk & Anr. v Deepika Prashar & Anr.]

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by advocate Suraj Saxena, who claimed ownership of a disputed property allegedly left behind by his client (Surendra Mohan Tarun) in his name.

As noted in the suit filed by Sarabjit Singh, Tarun had sold him the property but later dispossessed him unlawfully. After Tarun’s death, Saxena claimed a registered will in his favour and even sought appointment as a receiver when his name appeared on the property’s nameplate.

The Division Bench held that lawyers are officers of the court who must help advance justice, not stake personal claims in clients’ property.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

[Suraj Saxena v Sarabjit Singh]

The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, MahaRERA, will introduce hybrid hearings for complaints, non-compliance applications, and urgent mentions from August 18, following Bombay High Court directions. 

Parties can now opt for physical or virtual hearings, with physical requests submitted via the MahaRERA portal. Online filing of complaints, replies, and submissions will continue, along with daily cause lists and roznama entries.

Matters may be mentioned both physically and virtually at the start and end of sessions. All MahaRERA orders will carry date-time stamps and be accessible online.

The online complaint module will also be upgraded to ensure smooth hybrid operations.

The Madras HC dismissed a plea challenging Section 10A of the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams Act, 1963, which prohibits granting ryotwari patta for private tanks, ooranis, and ponds, even if connected to temples. 

A Division Bench rejected the claim of the hereditary trustee of Somanathar Temple in Thanjavur, who argued that the denial of a patta over a tank gifted in 1932 violated his property and religious rights.

The Court held that Section 10A serves a valid public purpose by vesting tanks with the State to safeguard ecological commons.

The Court clarified that ritual use is permissible, but exclusive ownership is barred, and the provision aligns with constitutional principles and Article 39(b).

The Punjab government has scrapped its 2025 Land Pooling Policy after the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed it. The policy, meant to acquire land for urban projects in exchange for developed plots, faced criticism from farmers over the loss of fertile land and low allowances. 

The Court flagged the absence of impact studies, timelines, and grievance mechanisms. Though the State claimed participation was voluntary, it suspended the policy on August 7.

Ahead of the September 10 hearing, the government announced a full withdrawal.

The Supreme Court has stayed the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision to remand a decades-old dispute over the estate of Bhopal’s last ruler, Nawab Hamidullah Khan, to the trial court.

The HC had set aside a 2000 verdict declaring Sajida Sultan, her son Mansoor Ali Khan, and heirs Saif Ali Khan, Soha Ali Khan, Saba Sultan, and Sharmila Tagore as exclusive owners, citing reliance on an overruled 1997 judgment.

Petitioners Omar and Raashid Ali argued the remand violated the Civil Procedure Code. The dispute, dating to 1960, centres on whether succession follows Muslim personal law or primogeniture. 

The case is set for further hearing.

The Delhi High Court stayed the auction of a man's ancestral property over unpaid maintenance, citing protection under Section 60(1)(ccc) of the CPC.

The petitioner argued that the property was his sole dwelling, shielding it from attachment or sale in execution of a decree.

The Court noted that the authenticity of a 2017 family settlement deed, which transferred ownership shares, was still under dispute. It held that allowing the sale before resolving this issue could lead to irreparable harm. The Court stayed the auction until August 28, stressing the need for proper adjudication.

[Sh. Raj Kumar And Anr. v. Mrs Poonam]