Judgment · High Court

W.P.No.37181 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 06.10.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.37181 of 2025G.Vijaya Lakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.

The District Collector (l.A.) SipcotCollectorate Complex, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu.

The Managing Director, Director (l.A)No.19a, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

The District Revenue Officer (l.A.) SipcotPillaipakkam, Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu.

The Special Tahsildar (la)Sipcot-sriperumbudur, Santhavellore Village, Sriperumbudur -602 105... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 4th Respondent to take appropriate action on petitioner representation dated 06.12.2023 to refer 2.27 cents to the competent court i/s. 18 of Land Acquisition act which was omitted.1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.37181 of 2025 For Petitioner: Mr.R.VijayraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.P.Sathish, AGP for R1, 3 & 4 Mr.Abishek Murthy, GA for R2ORDERThis writ petition has been filed to direct the 4th Respondent to take appropriate action on petitioner representation dated 06.12.20232. Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1, 3 & 4 and Mr.Abishek Murthy, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the 2nd respondent.3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the subject land of the petitioner was acquired by the 4th respondent. Thereafter, upon receipt of information with regard to the compensation ascertained by the 4th respondent, the petitioner had 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.37181 of 2025requested them to refer the case to the competent Court. Accordingly, the case was referred in LAOP No.678/03, 62007, 621/07, which were settled and the compensation was fixed at a sum of Rs.4,000/- per cent. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was preferred by the 4th respondent before the Hon'ble Apex Court, whereby, the aforesaid compensation of Rs.4,000/- per cent was confirmed. Pursuant to the same, the compensation was settled to the petitioner. However, after the receipt of said amount, the petitioner found that an extent of 2.27 cents out of 14.25 cents was omitted to be referred. Therefore, a representation dated 06.10.2023 was filed before the 4th respondent to refer the omitted portion to the Competent Court. However, the said representation was not considered by the respondent till date. Hence, this petition.

In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would request this Court to grant 4 weeks time for considering the representation of the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.37181 of 2025 Additional Government Pleader and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

In the case on hand, the subject land of the petitioner was acquired by the 4th respondent. Thereafter, upon receipt of information with regard to the compensation ascertained by the 4th respondent, the petitioner had requested them to refer the case to the competent Court. Accordingly, the case was referred to LAOP Court and the compensation was fixed at a sum of Rs.4,000/- per cent and the said compensation was settled to the petitioner. However, after the receipt of said amount, the petitioner found that an extent of 2.27 cents out of 14.25 cents was omitted to be referred. Therefore, a representation dated 06.10.2023 was filed before the 4th respondent to refer the omitted portion to the Competent Court. However, the said representation was not considered by the respondent till date.