Madras High Court
Kaliamoorthy vs The Additional Chief Secretary on 10 October, 2023
W.A.No.2734 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.10.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.A.No.2734 of 2023
KALIAMOORTHY .. Appellant
Vs
1. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
Industries (MI.1) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 01.
2. The Commissioner of Land Administration
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. The Chairman and Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Industries Development Corporation(TIDCO),
No.19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 08,
4. The District Collector
Ariyalur District.
5. The Special Tahsildar (LA)
Jayankondam Lignite Power Project (JLPP),
Jayankondam, Ariyalur District. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 9.9.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
____________
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2734 of 2023
W.P.No.24221 of 2022.
For the Appellant : Mr.T.P.Prabakaran
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Muthukumar
State Government Pleader
for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
We have heard Mr.T.P.Prabakaran, learned counsel for the
appellant; and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned State Government
Pleader for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5.
2. The present appellant has filed a writ petition, bearing
W.P.No.24221 of 2022, challenging the government order dated
2.6.2022 and seeking a consequential relief, i.e., compensation of
Rs.25,30,000/- [Rupees twenty five lakh and thirty thousand
only] towards damages on account of acquisition of the
appellant's land. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2734 of 2023
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the land
was acquired in the year 1999. The award was passed in the
year 2001. A paltry amount of compensation was paid to the
appellant. The appellant had filed a reference under Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Now, after lapse of 21 years,
the respondents are returning the land to the appellant. The
respondents enjoyed the land of the appellant for 21 years and
for that they are required to pay compensation to the appellant.
4. Learned State Government Pleader submits that the
appellant was in possession of the land, though the land was
acquired, and was enjoying the usufructs of the land.
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant was paid the
compensation for the land acquired. The appellant also does not
seriously dispute that possession remained with the appellant for
all these years. The appellant was enjoying the usufructs of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2734 of 2023
land.
6. The only contention of the appellant is that the rights of
ownership were restricted, inasmuch as the appellant was not in
a position to deal with the property in whatsoever manner.
However, the appellant has received the compensation. He was
enjoying the usufructs and now because the project could not be
taken forward, the land is returned to the appellant free of all
encumbrances for the appellant to use and enjoy the land. The
respondents are also not claiming back the amount paid to the
appellant pursuant to the award. The same is also retained by
the appellant.
7. In the light of the factors such as: (i) the appellant has
received the amount of compensation for the land acquired; (ii)
though the land was acquired, the appellant was in possession of
the said land and was enjoying the usufructs of the land; and (iii)
the land is returned to the appellant free of all encumbrances
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2734 of 2023
without seeking refund of the amount paid to the appellant, we
do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge
while passing the impugned order.
8. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be
no order as to costs.
(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)
10.10.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sasi
To:
1. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
Industries (MI.1) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 01.
2. The Commissioner of Land Administration
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. The Chairman and Managing Director
Tamil Nadu Industries Development Corporation(TIDCO),
No.19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 08,
4. The District Collector
Ariyalur District.
5. The Special Tahsildar (LA)
Jayankondam Lignite Power Project (JLPP),
Jayankondam, Ariyalur District.
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.2734 of 2023
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
(sasi)
W.A.No.2734 of 2023
10.10.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
