Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs C.Yerma Naicker on 12 February, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)No.1283 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A(MD)No.1283 of 2018
and
C.M.P(MD)No.8993 of 2018
1.The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Revenue Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Karur District,
Karur.
3.The Special Tahsildar,
(Land Acquisition) Phase – I,
Thanthonimalai Village,
Karur Taluk,
Karur District. ... Appellants /
Respondents
Vs.
C.Yerma Naicker ... Respondent /
Petitioner
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside
the order dated 10.06.2014 made in W.P(MD)No.15265 of 2013 on the
file of this Court and allow this Writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.A.(MD)No.1283 of 2018
For Appellants : Mr.Veera.Kathiravan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.SR.Ramachandran
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal
Senior Counsel
for Mr.H.Thayumanasamy
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
Heard both sides.
2.This intracourt appeal is directed against the order dated
10.06.2014 allowing W.P(MD)No.15265 of 2013 filed by the respondent
herein. The respondent herein filed the said writ petition challenging the
land acquisition notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 vide G.O(Ms)No.452 Revenue Department dated
03.06.1998 and the consequential declaration under Section 6 of the said
Act made vide Government Gazette dated 04.06.1998. The writ petition
was allowed by the learned single Judge. Questioning the same, this
Writ Appeal came to be filed.
3.The question that calls for consideration is whether this
Court should interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.It is seen that questioning the very same land acquisition
notification, some of the other land owners filed W.P.No.19889 of 1999
before the Principal Seat. The writ petition was allowed on 27.07.2009.
In paragraph 27 of the order passed by the learned single Judge quashed
the entire acquisition proceedings but gave liberty to the State to issue
fresh notification, if the Government was of the opinion that the lands are
still required. Aggrieved by same, the State filed Writ Appeal only in the
year 2011. There was a delay of 794 days in filing the Writ Appeal. The
Hon'ble First Bench vide order dated 17.02.2012 dismissed the Writ
Appeal by declining to condone the delay. Aggrieved by the same, the
State filed S.L.P.Civil No.35520 of 2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
dismissed the SLP on 27.11.2024. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reads as follows:
“1.Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for
the parties at length.
2.It appears that the order dated 27.07.2009
passed by the Single Bench of the High Court of Madras
in Writ Petition No.19889 of 1999 quashing the
acquisition proceedings, was sought to be challenged
by the petitioner – State by filing WA.SR.No.
110367/2011 after a delay of about 794 days. The
Division Bench vide the impugned order dated
17.02.2012, dismissed the said Writ Appeal on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ground of delay itself. The said order is under
challenge in SLP(c) No.35520/2013. Similar Writ
Appeals arising out of the same land acquisition
proceedings were also dismissed by the Division Bench
on the ground of delay itself. Being aggrived by the
said orders, the connected Special Leave Petitions were
filed.
3.It may be noted that the lands were sought
to be acquired by the petitioner - State invoking
Urgency Clause under Section 17 of the Land
Acquisition Act and the same were quashed by the
single Bench in the year 2009, granting liberty to the
State to issue fresh notification, if the Government was
of the opinion that the lands were still required.
However, admittedly till this date, no such steps for
fresh acquisitions have been taken by the State.
4.The learned senior counsel, Mr.Hegde had
placed reliance on the affidavits filed on behalf of the
State showing the action taken by the State against the
errant officers. Let the State proceed against them in
accordance with law. However, having regard to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned orders when the
acquisition proceedings in respect of lands in question
were quashed by the Single Bench in the year 2009 and
the Writ Appeals were filed after gross delay and when
no fresh notification for acquisition of the lands in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
question have been issued till this date.
5.In that view of the matter, all the Special
Leave Petitions are dismissed.
6.Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.”
Following the same, a learned Judge sitting in the Principal Seat allowed
W.P.Nos.15273 to 15277 of 2004 and 6079 and 16080 of 2004 on
08.11.2024. It is not in dispute that those writ petitioners were also
covered by the very same acquisition notification.
5.For similarly placed individuals, judicial relief had been
granted. We are of the view that a different approach or yardstick need
not be adopted in the case of the writ petitioner herein. In this view of
the matter, we decline to interfere.
6.This Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[G.R.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
12.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
MGA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
MGA
and
12.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
