High Court · 2025

W.A.No.3524 of 2024--------------------------IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 23.01.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIANANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPANW.A.No.3524 of 2024andC.M.P.No.27285 of 20241.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.2.The District Collector, GST Road, Chengalpattu - 603 001.3.The Divisional Engineer (H), Highways Department, Chennai Metropolitan Development Project, Division II, No.1, V.V.Koil Street, Chennai - 600 015. 4.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Construction and Maintenance Wing, Tambaram Sub Division, Chennai - 600 042.5.The Tahsildar, Tambaram, Chennai - 600 042. ... AppellantsVs.----------------------Page No.: 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3524 of 2024--------------------------1.R.Janakiraman2.R.Loganathan... RespondentsPRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 08.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.23690 of 2022.For Appellants: Mr.Ramanlal, Additional Advocate General For Respondents: Mr.S.Ayyadurai, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Elumalai ******J U D G M E N T(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge directing payment of compensation for the land of an extent of about 1300 sq.f. in S.No.432/1 of Medavakkam Village. 2. The respondents claimed that the said land was assigned to their father by proceedings dated 25.05.1997 pursuant to the directions issued by the District Collector in R.Dis.No.17068/84 dated 09.10.1991. It is also the contention of the petitioners that they had been in possession of the property --------------------Page No.: 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3524 of 2024--------------------------having inherited the same after the death of their father. 3. It is claimed that the building put up in the land was demolished by the Highways Department claiming that the land is classified as Government Poramboke in the revenue records. Since their claim for compensation was not considered, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.10006 of 2016 seeking a direction to dispose of their representation. The said Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the representation of the petitioners. 4. After the said direction was issued, the order impugned in the writ petition came to be passed on 29.07.2022 claiming that the land was classified as Velacherry Main Road and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to compensation. Challenging the said order, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.No.23690 of 2022. The learned Single Judge by order dated 08.09.2022 rejected the contention of the Government that the land belongs to the Government and directed payment of compensation. 5. The foundation of the case of the petitioners before the writ Court was the order of assignment dated 25.05.1997. The correctness or validity of the said assignment was not put in issue before the learned Single Judge. The only ----------------------Page No.: 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3524 of 2024--------------------------submission that was made was that the petitioners will be heard before passing of the award. It was also claimed that the land is classified as Government Poramboke and Grama Natham in the revenue records and it was also conceded that the name of the petitioners' father was reflected in the revenue records. The learned Single Judge after referring to the judgment in A.R.Meenakshi and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep., by the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Land Administration reported in 2013 (4) LW 76, wherein, it was held that Government Poramboke and Grama Natham are not synonyms and usage of these expression as synonyms is not correct, concluded that the petitioners will be entitled to compensation. 6. We have heard Mr.Ramanlal, learned Additional Advocate General instructed by Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and Mr.S.Ayyadurai, learned Counsel assisted by Mr.M.Elumalai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.7. Mr.Ramanlal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the very assignment issued to the father of the petitioners in 1997 is highly doubtful and he would also submit that --------------------Page No.: 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3524 of 2024--------------------------the land has been classified as Government Poramboke and Velacherry Main Road in the revenue records. The village 'A' register of Medavakkam Village has been produced before us. It is seen that the same was prepared in 1989. As far as the S.No.432/1 is concerned, the entry is to the effect that it is Government Poramboke and in the remarks column it is shown as Natham. A copy of the Natham Settlement register has also been produced before us and it shows that the classification of land in S.No.432/1 measuring about 17 ares is Grama Natham and in the remarks column it is stated as Velacherry Main Road. The Natham Nilavari Thitta Adangal is also produced and S.No.432/1 measuring an extent of 17 ares is shown as idhara proamboke. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that this land was Government Poramboke land and it formed part of the road cannot be accepted. 8. It is also seen that the Tahsildar, Tambaram had in the year 2000 i.e., on 21.10.2000 issued an enjoyment certificate to the father of the petitioners and in the year 2002 by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1465/2022/B1 dated 02.07.2002, the Tahsildar, Tambaram has clearly stated that S.No.432/1 has been registered as grama natham in the village account and it does not belong to the Highways Department. This letter is addressed to the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Saidapet sub-Division and a copy has been marked to the Sub-----------------------Page No.: 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3524 of 2024--------------------------Inspector of Police, Pallikaranai also. This certificate has emanated around the time when the construction put up by the petitioners was removed by the Highways Department in the year 2002. It is therefore clear that the contention that the assignment patta is not genuine is raked up only for the purposes of this appeal without any basis. 9. We therefore find that the appeal lacks merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. The appeal is therefore dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions is closed. 10. The appellants will determine the compensation and pay the same within a period of six weeks from today. The learned Single Judge is requested not to close the contempt petition and only adjourn it by six weeks, so as to ensure that the order is complied with. (R.S.M.,J.) (C.K.,J.) 23.01.2025 dsaIndex: NoNeutral Citation : Yes--------------------Page No.: 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3524 of 2024--------------------------Speaking orderTo1.The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.2.The District Collector, GDT Road, Chengalpattu - 603 001.3.The Divisional Engineer (H), Highways Department, Chennai Metropolitan Development Project, Division II, No.1, V.V.Koil Street, Chennai - 600 015. 4.The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Construction and Maintenance Wing, Tambaram Sub Division, Chennai - 600 042.5.The Tahsildar, Tambaram, Chennai - 600 042. ----------------------Page No.: 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.No.3524 of 2024--------------------------R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.andC.KUMARAPPAN, J.dsaW.A.No.3524 of 202423.01.2025--------------------Page No.: 8 of 8