Madrasdated High Court · 2026

W.P.No.46981 of 20255.The Tahsildar,Office of the Tahsildhar, Madhavaram, Madhavaram Taluk, Chennai 600 060...RespondentsFor Petitioner(s):Mr.G.Surya NarayananFor Respondent(s):Mr.M.R.Gokulakrishnan,Additional Government PleaderORDERThe matter is listed once again upon being mentioned.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there is clerical error in including W.P.No.46992 of 2025 in the cause title. He also points out that clause (i) of paragraph 2 should read as “Replace the description of the fourth respondent in the cause title with “The Special Tahsildhar (LA), Aromatic (Complex) Project, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015”.” Upon examining the records, the contention is liable to be accepted. Therefore, the Registry is directed to re-issue the order after making the following corrections:(i) Replace the description of the fourth respondent in the cause 2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.46981 of 2025title with “The Special Tahsildhar (LA), Aromatic (Complex) Project, Saidapet, Chennai-600 015”.(ii) Replace W.P.No.18690 of 2021 with W.P.No.8283 of 2025 in paragraphs 1 and 5.(iii) Remove W.P.No.46992 of 2025 from the cause title.10-04-2026kjTo1.The District Collector,Office Of The Collector,Chennai District.2.The District Collector,Office Of The Collector, Tiruvallur District.3.The State Of Tamil Nadu,Represented By Secretary To Government, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 0094.The Special Tahsildar (LA),Aromatic (complex) Project, Saidapet, Chennai 600 0155.The Tahsildar,Office Of The Tahsildhar, Madhavaram, Madhavaram Taluk, Chennai 600 0606.The Special Tahsildar (LA), MMRD, Land acquired for MMRD Project, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.46981 of 2025SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.kjWP No. 46981 of 202510-04-20264/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.46981 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-01-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYWP No. 46981 of 2025and W.P.No.46992 of 2025Mr.M.Ravi KumarS/o.LATE MANICKASWAMY,RESIDING AT NO.116/76,MADAVARAM HIGH ROAD,PERAMBUR,CHENNAI 600 011..Petitioner(s)Vs6.The District Collector,Office Of The Collector, Chennai District.7.The District Collector,Office Of The Collector, Tiruvallur District.8.The State Of Tamil Nadu,Represented By Secretary To Government, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 0095/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.46981 of 20259.The Special Tahsildar (la),Aromatic (complex) Project, Saidapet, Chennai 600 01510.The Tahsildar,Office Of The Tahsildhar, Madhavaram, Madhavaram Taluk, Chennai 600 060..Respondent(s)For Petitioner(s):Mr.G.Surya NarayananFor Respondent(s):Mr.M.R.Gokulakrishnan,Additional Government PleaderORDER The matter is listed upon “being mentioned”. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there are clerical and typographical errors in the order. In particular, he submits that the description of the 4th respondent is incorrect. Necessary corrections in the petition shall be carried out by learned counsel for the petitioner. He also points out that the references to W.P.No.18690 of 2021 in paragraphs 1 and 5 should be replaced with W.P.No.8283 of 2025.6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.46981 of 20252. Upon examining the records, the request of the petitioner is liable to be accepted. Therefore, the Registry is directed to re-issue the order after making the following corrections:(i) Replace the description of the 4th respondent in the cause title with “The Special Tahsildar (LA), MMRD, Land acquired for MMRD Project, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.”(ii) Replace W.P.No.18690 of 2021 with W.P.No.8283 of 2025 in paragraphs 1 and 5.29-01-2026RNATo7.The District Collector,Office Of The Collector,Chennai District.8.The District Collector,Office Of The Collector, Tiruvallur District.9.The State Of Tamil Nadu,Represented By Secretary To Government, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 00910.The Special Tahsildar (LA),Aromatic (complex) Project, Saidapet, Chennai 600 0157/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.46981 of 202511.The Tahsildar,Office Of The Tahsildhar, Madhavaram, Madhavaram Taluk, Chennai 600 06012.The Special Tahsildar (LA), MMRD, Land acquired for MMRD Project, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.RNAWP No. 46981 & 46992 of 202529-01-20268/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.46981 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.12.2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.No.46981 of 2025M.Ravi Kumar.. Petitionervs1.The District Collector, Office of the Collector, Chennai District.2.The District Collector, Office of the Collector, Tiruvallur District.3.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.4.The Special Tahsildar (LA), Aromatic (Complex) Project, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.5.The Tahsildhar, Office of the Tahsildhar, Madhavaram, Madhavaram Taluk, Chennai – 600 060... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of declaration to declare that the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation at Rs.6,100/- per cent with 30% solatium with 12% interest in respect of S.Nos.92/1, 9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.46981 of 202592/2B, 147/1C, 147/4 and 174/2 at Mathur Village from the date of award till the date of payment and for certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.J9/22009152/2025 dated 04.11.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to pay the enhanced compensation at Rs.6100/- per cent, with 30% solatium and 12% interest as granted to the adjacent owners.For Petitioner:Mr.G.Surya NarayananFor Respondents:Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan,Additional Government PleaderORDERThe petitioner had approached this Court seeking consideration of representation for enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by filing W.P.No.18690 of 2021. This Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narendra and Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [(2017) 9 SCC 426] (Narendra) and directed the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass final orders within three months. The order impugned herein has been issued pursuant thereto. By such order, in respect of each relevant survey number, the request for enhanced compensation has been rejected by stating that revenue deposits were made of compensation amounts and that the request for enhanced compensation cannot be entertained.10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.46981 of 20252. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the proceedings for enhanced compensation in L.A.O.P.No.615 of 1998 and the conclusion therein that the claimants therein are entitled to compensation at Rs.6,100/- plus solatium at 30%. Learned counsel contends that the lands forming subject of the above mentioned LAOP are adjacent lands and that the petitioner is entitled to similar compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. Without considering these aspects, he submits that the impugned order was issued.3. Mr.M.R.Gokula Krishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for all the respondents. In all fairness, he submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narendra was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order and that the matter warrants reconsideration on that account.4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticeable that an identical conclusion has been recorded while rejecting the request for enhanced compensation for each relevant survey number. By way of illustration, the following finding in respect of Survey No.92/1 is extracted below:11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.46981 of 2025@Mdhy;. kDjhuh;. epy vLg;g[ rl;lg; gpupt[ 28(A)?d; fPH;eilKiwfis gpd;gw;wg;gltpy;iy/ mjdhy;. epy vLg;g[ rl;lg; gpupt[ 28(A)?d; fPH; cah;kjpg;gPl;Lj;bjhif eph;zak; bra;J tH';f tHptif ,y;iy vd bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/@5. As is evident from the above extract, the ratio of Narendra and the direction issued by this Court in earlier W.P.No.18690 of 2021 were not taken into account. For these reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. As a corollary, the matter is remanded to the District Collector, Chennai, for reconsideration. After taking into account the ratio of Narendra and the earlier order of this Court, fresh order shall be issued within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.6. This writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.04.12.2025Index:Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/NommiTo1.The District Collector, Office of the Collector,12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.46981 of 2025 Chennai District.2.The District Collector, Office of the Collector, Tiruvallur District.3.The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.4.The Special Tahsildar (LA), Aromatic (Complex) Project, Saidapet, Chennai – 600 015.5.The Tahsildhar, Office of the Tahsildhar, Madhavaram, Madhavaram Taluk, Chennai – 600 060.13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.46981 of 2025SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.mmiW.P.No.46981 of 202514/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.46981 of 202504.12.202515/15