High Court · 2025

W.P.No.25216 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 27.10.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.No.25216 of 2025andW.M.P.No.28752 of 2025M/s. Deva Vezman Food & Beverages Private Limited,Director, Krishnamurthy Kannan,S/o.Late Mr.K.S.Krishnamurthy,Door No.2, Palat Madhavan Road,Mahalingapuram, Chennai – 600 034. ... Petitioner Versus The Special District Revenue Officer (L.A.),SIPCOT Manellore (Phase-III), Kavaraipettai,Thiruvallur District – 601202. ...RespondentPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order of the Respondent issued in Na.Ka.No.170/2023/A-1/Spl.DRO/Tiruvallur Award No.14 of 2025, Sl.No.5, Unit 9, Block 1 dated 11.04.2025 directing deposit of the compensation amount awarded with the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur and quash the same and consequently directing the Respondent to disburse the award amount to the petitioner.For Petitioner: Mr.B.S.JothiramanFor Respondent: Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.P.Sathish, Additional Government Pleader.1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25216 of 2025O R D E RChallenge made in this Writ Petition is to the order of the Respondent dated 11.04.2025 issued in Na.Ka.No.170/2023/A-1/Spl.DRO/Tiruvallur Award No.14 of 2025, Sl.No.5, Unit 9, Block 1 directing deposit of the compensation amount awarded with the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur and consequential prayer to direct the Respondent to disburse the award amount to the petitioner.2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the agricultural land in Survey No.258 measuring an extent of 4.97 acres originally belonged to one V.Munuswami, in whose favour the Government of Tamil Nadu had allotted the said land and issued Patta bearing No.641. The Land Deputy Tahsildar, Gummidipoondi, issued a new Patta No.671 to him on 28.05.1974. The said V.Munuswami sold this 4.97 acres of land in Survey No.258 to one B.Nazeer Ahamed by virtue of a sale deed dated 23.03.1988 registered as Document No.1208 of 1988 on the file of the Registrar of Madras North. The said B.Nazeer Ahamed sold this 4.97 Acres of land in Survey No.258 to M/s.Meera Sivasankaran, T.K.Karthikeyan and K.Gopalakrishnan by virtue of a sale deed dated 21.04.2004 registered as Document No.973 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Gummidipoondi. The said M/s.Meera 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25216 of 2025Sivasankaran and two others sold 4.97 acres of land in Survey No.258 and the land measuring to an extent of 1.28 Acres in Survey No.259/3 to the petitioner company by virtue of sale deed dated 30.06.2014 registered as Document No.2682 of 2024 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Gummidipoondi for a sale consideration of Rs.99,40,000/- at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/- per acre.3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that insofar as the land measuring 1.28 acres in Survey No.259/3 and 3.72 acres of land in Survey No.259/4 is concerned, it was originally belonged to one M.Natesan who had sold it to one S.Gnanasekar by virtue of sale deed dated 12.10.1987 registered as Document No.2156/1987 who in turn sold it to Babu and Hari by virtue of sale deed dated 26.03.1990 registered as Document No.475/1990. The said M/s. Babu and Hari sold 1.28 acres of land in Survey No.259/3 and 3.72 Acres of land in Survey No.259/4 by virtue of a sale deed dated 04.01.1995 to K.O.Subramaniam Raju who in turn sold the said land to M/s.Meera Sivasankaran, T.K.Karthikeyan and K.Gopalakrishnan by virtue of a sale deed dated 21.04.2004 under Document No.974/2004, from whom the petitioner had purchased the land by virtue of sale deed dated 01.11.2021. After purchasing the above lands, the petitioner company have planted Rosewood trees, Teak trees, Mango plants, Neem trees, Guava trees, Tamarind 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25216 of 2025trees, Mulberry and Eucalyptus trees. While so, the respondent have issued a show cause notice dated 31.07.2023 under Section (2) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 (Tamil Nadu Act 10 of 1999) stating that the above lands are required for industrial park for which the petitioner could not send his objections as he was out of India. Thereafter, on 27.08.2024 a notice under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 issued by the respondent to appear for an enquiry on 20.09.2024 in order to determine the compensation amount and directed to produce all relevant records with respect to the land in question including the sale deed, chitta, 'A' Register copy, Aadhaar card, etc. Accordingly, the petitioner had attended the enquiry and produced all the documents and requested to fix the value of the trees taking the age of the trees. Thereafter, on 26.12.2024, the petitioner objected to the acquisition stating that they are planning to start a food and beverage industry in the said land and requested the respondent to drop the acquisition proceedings. But, the respondent by letter dated 23.01.2025 rejected the request of the petitioner. 4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the impugned order the respondent stated that the petitioner had not established 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25216 of 2025their title to the land by producing the documents to show as to how the lands came to be converted as patta land from Government poramboke/Anadheenam and refused to pay the compensation. However, the respondent deposited the award of compensation of Rs.21,57,96,752/- in to the Court deposit on 13.07.2025. Therefore, challenging the said order, the petitioner is before this court with this Writ Petition.5.Mr.M.Suresh learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that in the present case since the petitioner failed to produce the documents regarding the conversion of Government poramboke/Anadheenam into patta lands, the respondent was not in a position to disburse the award of compensation. Hence, the respondent deposited the award of compensation into court deposit. However, he fairly submitted that the patta was already issued in favour of the predecessors in title to the property of the petitioner and also in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, upon production of the documents, the respondent can withdraw the compensation amount deposited into court and thereafter pay the amount to the petitioner.6.Heard Mr.B.S.Jothiraman, learned counsel for the petitioner and 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25216 of 2025Mr.M.Suresh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.7.Considering the submission made on either side, it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the land in Survey No.258 measuring an extent of 4.97 acres as it originally belonged to one V.Munuswami, in whose favour the Government of Tamil Nadu had allotted the said land and issued Patta bearing No.641. The Land Deputy Tahsildar, Gummidipoondi, issued a new Patta No.671 to him on 28.05.1974. The said V.Munuswami sold this 4.97 acres of land in Survey No.258 to one B.Nazeer Ahamed by virtue of a sale deed dated 23.03.1988 registered as Document No.1208 of 1988 on the file of the Registrar of Madras North. The said B.Nazeer Ahamed sold this 4.97 Acres of land in Survey No.258 to M/s.Meera Sivasankaran, T.K.Karthikeyan and K.Gopalakrishnan by virtue of a sale deed dated 21.04.2004 registered as Document No.973 of 2004 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Gummidipoondi. The said M/s.Meera Sivasankaran and two others sold 4.97 acres of land in Survey No.258 and the land measuring to an extent of 1.28 Acres in Survey No.259/3 to the petitioner company by virtue of sale deed dated 30.06.2014 registered as Document No.2682 of 2024 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Gummidipoondi for a sale consideration of Rs.99,40,000/- 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25216 of 2025at the rate of Rs.20,00,000/- per acre. Insofar as the land measuring 1.28 acres in Survey No.259/3 and 3.72 acres of land in Survey No.259/4 is concerned, it was originally belonged to one M.Natesan who had sold it to one S.Gnanasekar by virtue of sale deed dated 12.10.1987 registered as Document No.2156/1987 who in turn sold it to Babu and Hari by virtue of sale deed dated 26.03.1990 registered as Document No.475/1990. The said M/s. Babu and Hari sold 1.28 acres of land in Survey No.259/3 and 3.72 Acres of land in Survey No.259/4 by virtue of a sale deed dated 04.01.1995 to K.O.Subramaniam Raju who in turn sold the said land to M/s.Meera Sivasankaran, T.K.Karthikeyan and K.Gopalakrishnan by virtue of a sale deed dated 21.04.2004 under Document No.974/2004, from whom the petitioner had purchased the land by virtue of sale deed dated 01.11.2021. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the petitioner to the subject property. That apart, the revenue authorities have already issued patta to the three owners prior to the petitioner including this petitioner. 8.It is apposite to extract clause (r) in Section 3 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which reads as under:-“(r) “land owner” includes any person,— (i) whose name is recorded as the owner of the land or building or part 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25216 of 2025thereof, in the records of the authority concerned; or (ii) any person who is granted forest rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (2 of 2007) or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) who is entitled to be granted Patta rights on the land under any law of the State including assigned lands; or (iv) any person who has been declared as such by an order of the court or Authority;”9.The proviso (iii) to clause (r) in Section 3 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 clearly states that a person, who is entitled to be granted Patta rights on the land under any law of the State including assigned lands, is the land owner. Therefore, as per the above definition, the petitioner is the owner of the subject property by virtue of the sale deed executed in his favour by the vendor and he was in possession and enjoyment of the land and patta was issued to the vendor of the petitioner and also to the petitioner. While so, on 27.08.2024 a notice under Section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 was issued by the respondent to appear for an enquiry on 20.09.2024 in order to determine the compensation amount and directed to produce all relevant records with respect to the land in question including the sale deed, chitta, 'A' Register copy, Aadhaar card, etc. Accordingly, the petitioner had attended the enquiry and produced all the documents and requested to fix the value of the trees taking the age of the trees. Thereafter, on 26.12.2024, the petitioner objected to the 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25216 of 2025acquisition stating that they are planning to start a food and beverage industry in the said land and requested the respondent to drop the acquisition proceedings. But, the respondent by letter dated 23.01.2025 rejected the request of the petitioner. However, the compensation was fixed as per the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Even though, by the impugned order, the respondent stated that the petitioner had not established their title to the land by producing the documents to show as to how the lands came to be converted as patta land from Anadheenam/poramboke and refused to pay the compensation, the respondent deposited the award of compensation of Rs.21,57,96,752/- into the Court deposit on 13.07.2025. 10.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is very clear that prior to the petitioner, there were three owners and they were also granted patta for the subject property. Now, the petitioner was also granted with patta, chitta and adangal for the property. When such being the case, the Revenue authorities have categorically recognised the ownership of the subject property. Therefore, as on date, there is no dispute regarding the nature of the property and the eligibility of the petitioner to receive compensation. In the event of any dispute regarding the ownership of the land 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25216 of 2025between the petitioner and the Government, it is always open for the authorities concerned of the revenue department to agitate the same in the manner known to law. Further, it appears that as on date, there is no dispute regarding the title of the petitioner to the land and hence, the respondent cannot now stand on the way and deny the rights of the petitioner to receive compensation. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition.11.In view of the above, the respondent is directed to withdraw the amount of compensation of Rs.21,57,96,752/- already deposited into court deposit along with the interest accrued thereon as on date and disburse the same to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.12.With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, is closed. 27.10.2025Issue order copy by 06.11.2025srmIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking Order/Non Speaking orderNCC: Yes/NoTo10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25216 of 2025The Special District Revenue Officer (L.A.),SIPCOT Manellore (Phase-III), Kavaraipettai,Thiruvallur District – 601202. 11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25216 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY. J.,srmW.P.No.25216 of 202527.10.202512/12