C.S.Gopalakrishnan etc v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- G JAYACHANDRAN, SHAMIM
Outcome
Dismissed
Therefore, the present Writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to resort for adequate compensation if they are so advised
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Therefore, the present Writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to resort for adequate compensation if they are so advised. The pendency of the present Writ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 7224 of 2017__________Page4 of 5Petition during the period, is to be excluded while reckoning limitation. (G.J.,J.)…
Judgment
WP No. 7224 of 2017__________Page1 of 5IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 11-03-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRANANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMEDWP No. 7224 of 20171.M.Saravanan2.M.Vadivel3.M.Venkatesan4.M.Govindaraj5.D.Nataraj6.N.Srinivasa Rao7.K.V.Subramani8.K.Sivaprakasam9.M.Ellammal10.P.Kannan11.V.Sathyaraj..Petitioner(s)Vs1.The State of Tamil NaduRep. by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 0092.SIPCOT (Phase III, Unit I),Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, (I/C) Soolagiri Town & Taluk, Krishnagiri District 635 1173.The Special Tahsildar (LA),(I/C) Soolagiri Town & Taluk, Krishnagiri District 635 1174.The District collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 7224 of 2017__________Page2 of 55. The State of Tamil NaduRep. by its Secretary to Government, Law Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 0096.The Land Acquisition Officercum Additional Personal Assistant to the Collector, O/o. the District Collector, Krishnagiri...Respondent(s)Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records of the 1st respondent under G.O.Ms.No.96, Industries (MIG-2) Department, dated 14.06.2016 and consequential notices dated 23.08.2016 issued by the third respondent under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 in respect of the petitioners’ lands comprised in S.Nos.223/2B2, 21/1, 223/2A, 223/2B2, 223/2A3, 18/2, 223/2B2, 223/2B1, 18/1 and 223/2B in Gurubarapalli Villages, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri Taluk and quash the same. For petitioners : Mr.Pradeep.T. for M/s.Richardson WilsonFor respondents: Mr.Vadivelu Deenadayalan, Addl.G.P. for RR-1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Mr.Abishek Murthy, Standing Counsel for R-2ORDER(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.)This Writ Petition is filed challenging the acquisition of the land which the petitioners became the subsequent owners after Notification of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 7224 of 2017__________Page3 of 5G.O.Ms.No.96, Industries Department (MIG-2), dated 14.06.2016 and the consequential notice issued on 23.08.2016.
The main contention of the writ petitioners is that the lands acquired are agricultural lands which have been under the acquisition for industrial purposes under the Tamil Nad Land Acquisition for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and the said Act is not safe under Section 105-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act of 2013.
The issue raised in the Writ Petition had been given a quietus by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in “C.S.Gopalakrishnan etc. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others” by order dated 09.05.2023 and the issue raised therein was negatived by the Supreme Court in respect of the similar plea raised by the appellants in that case.
Therefore, nothing survives for consideration in this Writ Petition, except the right of the land owners to seek for additional compensation if any the land owners deserve.
Operative part
Therefore, the present Writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to resort for adequate compensation if they are so advised. The pendency of the present Writ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 7224 of 2017__________Page4 of 5Petition during the period, is to be excluded while reckoning limitation. (G.J.,J.) (S.S.A.,J.) 11-03-2026csTo1.The State of Tamil NaduRep. by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 0092.SIPCOT (Phase III, Unit I),Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director, (I/C) Soolagiri Town & Taluk, Krishnagiri District 635 1173.The Special Tahsildar (LA),(I/C) Soolagiri Town & Taluk, Krishnagiri District 635 1174.The District collector, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 5. The State of Tamil NaduRep. by its Secretary to Government, Law Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 0096.The Land Acquisition Officercum Additional Personal Assistant to the Collector, O/o. the District Collector, Krishnagiri. 7. The State of Tamil NaduRep. by its Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 7224 of 2017__________Page5 of 5Dr.G.Jayachandran, JandShamim Ahmed, JcsW.P.No.7224 of 201711.03.2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the present Writ petition is dismissed, with liberty to resort for adequate compensation if they are so advised
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 — s. 3; Tamil Nad Land Acquisition for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.