{"id":3620,"date":"2019-03-26T15:46:03","date_gmt":"2019-03-26T15:46:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/?p=3620"},"modified":"2026-08-23T11:57:16","modified_gmt":"2026-08-23T11:57:16","slug":"v-krishnamurthy-anr-v-state-of-tamil-nadu","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/?p=3620","title":{"rendered":"V. Krishnamurthy & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra represented the appellants before the Supreme Court of India in V. Krishnamurthy & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.<\/em>, reported in (2020) 14 SCC 408<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Representation Before the Supreme Court<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case record specifically identifies Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-I<\/strong> as counsel for the appellants, V. Krishnamurthy and another. His appearance before the Supreme Court was therefore on behalf of the appellants in their challenge to the decision of the High Court concerning the resumption of land by the State of Tamil Nadu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nature of the Dispute<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dispute concerned land that had been allotted by the Government of Tamil Nadu to an Agricultural\/Horticultural Society for a specified purpose. The State subsequently initiated proceedings for resumption of the land<\/strong>, stating that the land was required for a public purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The appellants challenged the State’s action and questioned the validity of the resumption. The proceedings involved consideration of the circumstances in which land granted by the State could be resumed and the legality of the action taken by the authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The matter also involved allegations concerning the manner in which the decision to resume the land had been taken and whether the action of the State authorities could be sustained in law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Role of Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra’s verified role in the matter was as counsel representing the appellants<\/strong> before the Supreme Court. The Court record expressly identifies him as counsel for V. Krishnamurthy and another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As counsel for the appellants, his participation formed part of the proceedings in which the appellants challenged the State’s resumption of the land and sought judicial consideration of the legality of the State’s action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reported judgment, however, does not separately attribute particular submissions or individual arguments to Mr. Mishra by name. Accordingly, no specific legal argument is assigned to him individually beyond his recorded role as counsel for the appellants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Issues Before the Court<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court examined the validity of the State’s decision to resume the land and the circumstances in which the land had originally been allotted. The Court considered the reasons given by the State authorities and the findings of the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also examined the allegations raised by the appellants concerning the State’s decision and whether the circumstances justified interference with the order of resumption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Decision of the Supreme Court<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After considering the material placed before it, the Supreme Court did not find sufficient grounds to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The Court upheld the decision sustaining the State’s action concerning the resumption of the land.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The appeals filed by V. Krishnamurthy and another were consequently dismissed<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Verified Role<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the basis of the reported Supreme Court record, Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra’s role in the matter can accurately be described as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Counsel for the Appellants \u2014 V. Krishnamurthy & Anr<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His appearance and representation of the appellants are expressly reflected in the case record. The judgment does not separately identify any particular submission as having been made by him individually; therefore, his contribution is described strictly within the scope of his verified role as counsel representing the appellants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra represented the appellants before the Supreme Court of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4070,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[2,4,5],"class_list":["post-3620","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-advice","tag-defense","tag-justice"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/V.-Krishnamurthy-Anr.-v.-State-of-Tamil-Nadu.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3620","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3620"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3620\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3622,"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3620\/revisions\/3622"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/4070"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3620"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3620"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jdlaw.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3620"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}