Madras High Court

Madura Coats (P) Ltd vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 March, 2025

Author: N.Anand Venkatesh

Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh

Writ Petition No.12757 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

Writ Petition No.12757 of 2022

Madura Coats (P) Ltd.,
Rep. By its Senior Manager – Legal
7th Floor, Jupiter 2A, Prestige Tech Park
Sarjapur – Marathahalli Ring Road
Bangalore – 560 103, Karnataka. ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. By its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

2. The District Collector,
Tiruppur District,
Collectorate, Tiruppur – 641 604.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Tiruppur District,
Tiruppur – 641 604.

4. The Commissioner,
Corporation of Tiruppur,
Mangalam Road, Tiruppur – 641 604. ... Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 02:15:30 pm )
1/14
Writ Petition No.12757 of 2022

respondent to compensate the petitioner for acquisition of its lands in
extent 11.31 cents at Door No.1, 60/61, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Harvey
Road, Tiruppur – 641 602, by adopting the guideline value thereof as on
12.11.2009, the date of taking possession, together with interest thereon
@ 15% per annum from the date of acquisition till 19.11.2021.

For Petitioner : Ms.S.P.Arthi
For Respondents : Mr.A.Selvendran
Special Government Pleader [R1 to R3]
Mr.S.Silambarasan, Senior Counsel
for Ms.P.Shanthi [R4]
*****

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of

mandamus directing the fourth respondent to compensate the petitioner

for acquiring the lands belonging to the petitioner by adopting the

guideline value as on 12.11.2009 and to pay interest at the rate of 15%

p.a. from the date of taking possession till 19.11.2021.

2. Heard Ms.S.P.Arthi, learned counsel for petitioner,

Mr.A.Selvendran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for

respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.S.Silambarasan, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for fourth respondent.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 02:15:30 pm )

Writ Petition No.12757 of 2022

3. When the matter came up for hearing on 14.02.2025, this

Court passed the following order:

"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this Court and sought for a direction to the 4th respondent to compensate the petitioner for taking over the lands belonging to the petitioner by adopting the guideline value as on 12.11.2009 and to pay the compensation amount along with interest.

2.This is the second round of litigation before this Court. The first round of litigation started in WP.No.23957 of 2009 where the petitioner approached this Court and sought for compensation on the ground that the property of the petitioner to an extent of 11.31 cents was taken away by the respondents without adopting the proper procedure. This writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 29.08.2019 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, initially, the petitioner's land was acquired without consent of the petitioner and though the action of the 2nd respondent is unapproved one, the same is against law. However, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has taken proper steps and the Commissioner has also accepted the petitioner's grievance. Accordingly, he has sent a letter dated 06.08.2019 to the District Collector and Town and Country Planning Officer for fixation of fair compensation. It appears that the District Collector immediately after receipt of letter dated 06.08.2019 has deputed the Revenue Divisional Officer and other revenue officials for taking necessary steps to fix a fair compensation. In view of the above, I am inclined to issue a direction to the respondents officials to complete the above exercise after hearing the petitioner within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs”.

3.After the above order was passed, no compensation was paid and hence a contempt petition was filed in Cont.P.No.878 of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 02:15:30 pm )

Writ Petition No.12757 of 2022

2021. During the pendecny of the contempt petition, the compensation amount was arrived at Rs.1,34,50,990/-. This amount was received by the petitioner under protest. Hence, the contempt petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 19.11.2021 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

“2.When the matter was taken up, it is submitted that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23957 of 2009 on 29.08.2019 has been complied with and a copy of the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.19314/2018/Oo1 complying with the directions of this Court is placed before this Court along with the demand draft towards payment of compensation. Recording the said statement and the proceedings along with demand draft, this contempt petition stands closed. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the compensation fixed by the respondent, he is at liberty to workout his remedy in accordance with law and the petitioner is directed to transfer the land in the name of the Municipal Corporation. However, there shall be no order as to costs”.

4.The first issue that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while determining the quantum of compensation, the 4th respondent has taken into consideration three values. For proper appreciation, the communication of the 4th respondent dated 03.04.2020, can be taken into consideration and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

“ghh;it 3?y; fz;Ls;s khefuhl;rpahy; ifafg;gLj;jg;gl;l epyj;jpw;F muR tHpfhl;o kjpg;g[ tH';f nfhhpajpy; rhh;gjpthsh;. jpUg;g{h; mth;fspd; 06/03/2020/k; njjp fojj;jpy; Fwpg;gpy; cs;s ,lj;jpw;F 01/01/2009 Kjy; 31/03/2012 tiu rJu mo xd;wpw;F U : /1555-? kjpg;g[ 01/04/2012 Kjy; 08/06/2017 tiu rJu mo xd;wpf;F U:/1800-?t[k; nkYk; 09/06/2017 Kjy; ehsJ njjp tiu rJu mi xd;wpf;F U:/1206-?kjpg;g[ fhzg;gLfpwJ vd;W bjhptpj;Js;shh;/

vdnt ,g;bghUs; bjhlh;ghf khtl;l Ml;rpah; mYtyfj;jpy; fye;jnyhrpf;fg;gl;ljpy;. jw;nghJ jhd; kDjhuUf;F ,Hg;gPL bjhif tH';fg;gl cs;ssjhy; elg;ghz;oy; cs;s tHpfhl;o kjpg;gPlo; d; go fzf;fPL bra;a vLj;Jf; bfhs;s ntz;Lk; vd bjhptpf;fg;gl;lJ/ Mjd;go fzf;fPlL ; g;gzpfSf;F elg;ghz;L bjhif U:/1206-? epy kjpg;ghf vLj;Jf; bfhz;L fzf;fPL bra;jjpy; fPH;fz;lthW ,Hg;gPL bjhif fzf;fplg;gl;Ls;sJ/

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 02:15:30 pm )

Writ Petition No.12757 of 2022

M/s.kJuh nfhl;!; epWtdj;jpd; kidaplk; 459kP =(11/31 brz;l;)=4939r/mo ,Hg;gPL tH';f ntz;oa bjhif = 4939x1206 = U:/59.58.434-? Jdpegh; ngr;Rthh;j;ij Kyk; tH';f ntz;oa bjhif =4939x1206x2.25 = U:/1.34.01.976-?

vdnt jw;nghija tHpfhl;L kjpg;g[ kw;Wk; tUtha kw;Wk; nghplh; nkyhz;ikj; Jiw muR Miz vz;/281 ehs; 07/09/2017?d; go khtl;; mstpy; jdpegh; ngr;Rthh;j;ij K:yk; eph;zak; bra;a ntz;oa bjhif 2/25 kl';F kjpg;gpd; go/M/s.kJuh nfhl;!; epWtdj;jpw;F :U/: 1.34.01.976-? tH';f ntz;oa[ss ; K/ vdnt ,j;bjhifapid mgptpUj;jpf; fl;lzj;jpypUe;J jpUg;g{h; cs;S:h; jpl;lf;FGkj;jpd; K:ykhf tH';f chpa cj;jput[ tH';FkhW gzpt[ld; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/@

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the lands were taken over by the respondents on 12.11.2009 and therefore the compensation ought to have been fixed with the guideline value as Rs.1,555/-. Whereas, the compensation has been fixed with a lesser value at Rs.1206/-. Hence, the difference in the rate that has been fixed will have to be paid to the petitioner which approximately works out to Rs.38/-lakhs.

6.The second ground that was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lands were taken over by the respondents in the year 2009 without following the proper procedure and while paying the compensation, interest has to be paid to the petitioner and no interest has been paid till date.

7.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that he is led by the learned Additional Advocate General and sought for time. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent submitted that the 4th respondent will also file a counter affidavit in this case and come up with their specific stand.

8.Post this writ petition under the caption 'part heard cases' on 27.02.2025."

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 02:15:30 pm )

Writ Petition No.12757 of 2022

4. The matter was thereafter listed on 27.02.2025 and the

following order was passed:

"Heard Mr.S.Silambanan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that he will take instructions for the queries that were raised by this Court in the earlier order dated 14.02.2025 and make his submissions.

2. Post this writ petition under the same caption on 07.03.2025."

5. Again, the matter was listed today and the fourth respondent

has filed a counter affidavit. The relevant portions in the counter affidavit

are extracted hereunder:

"8) I further humbly submits that, As per the letter dated 06.03.2020 The Deputy Registrar, Tiruppur as requested the Government to give a guide value for the land acquired by the Corporation from the petitioner and valued for that land from 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2012 is Rs.1,555/- per sq.ft. and from 01.04.2012 to 08.06.2017 Rs.1,800/- per sq.ft and from 09.06.2017 to till date Rs.1,206/- given as a guide value.

9) I further humbly submit that, in consultation with the District Collectorate regarding this matter, it was informed that since the compensation amount is being given to the petitioner, it should be calculated according to the current year's guide value. According to this calculation, taking the current year's amount of Rs.1,206/- per sq.ft., as the land value. As per said value of land, the compensation amount has been arrived for 4939 sqft is Rs.59,58,434/- only.

10) I further submit that, individual negotiation with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 02:15:30 pm )

Writ Petition No.12757 of 2022

the petitioner, as per Revenue and Disaster Management Department GO.281 Dt:07.09.2017, the compensation was fixed by 2nd respondent is 225% and increased the value of compensation amount is Rs.1,34,01,976/- and the same was accepted by the petitioner as full and final amount. Further I submit that, as per the Revenue and Disaster Management Department GO.281 Dt:07.09.2017, interest is not allowed for the increased the value as 225% of compensation. Further, that increased amount was accepted by the petitioner in individual negotiation as per said GO. I further submit that, adequate guarantee to disburse this amount from the development fee through Tiruppur Local Planning Committee."

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth

respondent submitted that there was an individual negotiation with the

petitioner and the compensation amount was fixed as per G.O.281, dated

07.09.2017 by fixing the compensation at 225% and the value of the

compensation was fixed at Rs.1,34,01,976/-. This compensation was also

accepted by the petitioner as full and final settlement. Learned Senior

Counsel submitted that if the compensation amount has been determined

as per the Government Order, the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek

for any payment of interest on the compensation. It was further submitted

that a proper compensation has been fixed and paid and therefore, there

is no scope for payment of any further compensation to the petitioner.

7. In reply to the above submission, learned counsel for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 02:15:30 pm )

Writ Petition No.12757 of 2022

petitioner submitted that there was no acquisition in this case and the

property was straightaway taken over without following the proper

procedure. In view of the same, it was contended that there was no

question of any private negotiation as was claimed by the fourth

respondent. In view of the same, learned counsel reiterated her

submission made before this Court on the earlier occasion on 14.02.2025.

8. This Court has carefully considered the stand taken by the

fourth respondent in the counter affidavit as also the submission of the

learned counsel appearing on either side.

9. In the case in hand, there was no acquisition of land and the

land belonging to the petitioner was straightaway utilized without

following the proper procedure. Hence, it is a clear case of expropriation

of land. Considering the same, the petitioner will be entitled for

compensation.

10. The right to claim compensation has been held to be a

fundamental right. The law on this issue was discussed in detail by the

Apex Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another v. Bimal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 02:15:30 pm )

Writ Petition No.12757 of 2022

Kumar Shah & others [Civil Appeal No.6466 of 2024, dated

16.05.2024]. The Apex Court went into various facets of right to

property and insofar as payment of compensation is concerned, it was

held as follows:

"30.5. The Right of restitution or fair compensation:

(i) A person’s right to hold and enjoy property is an integral part to the constitutional right under Article 300A.

Deprivation or extinguishment of that right is permissible only upon restitution, be it in the form of monetary compensation, rehabilitation or other similar means. Compensation has always been considered to be an integral part of the process of acquisition.

(ii) Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 8 and 9 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, Section 23 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and Sections 3G and 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 are the statutory incorporations of the right to restitute a person whose land has been compulsorily acquired.

(iii) Our courts have not only considered that compensation is necessary, but have also held that a fair and reasonable compensation is the sine qua non for any acquisition process [State of U.P. v. Manohar, (2005) 2 SCC 126]."

11. It is clear from the above judgment that when the Court

considers the payment of compensation, the Court must be satisfied that

the compensation paid is fair and reasonable compensation, which is a

sine qua non for any acquisition process.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 02:15:30 pm )

Writ Petition No.12757 of 2022

12. In the case in hand, the fourth respondent is placing

reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.281, dated 07.09.2017. The Government Order

deals with private negotiation that can be made in order to acquire a land

under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (Central Act 30/2013).

Such private negotiations are done when the Government is proposing to

acquire the land and the negotiation takes place before the process of

acquisition. This Government Order contemplates a situation where there

is a proper discussion, which takes place between the Government/its

instrumentalities and the owner of the property before acquiring the land.

13. In the case in hand, the property was knocked off without

following any due process and the petitioner had to knock the doors of

this Court seeking for payment of compensation. Only thereafter, the

payment of compensation of Rs.1,34,01,976/- was paid to the petitioner.

This Court has to see whether a fair and reasonable compensation was

paid to the petitioner.

14. In order to decide the same, it must be seen as to whether https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 02:15:30 pm )

Writ Petition No.12757 of 2022

the guideline value adopted was proper. The property belonging to the

petitioner was taken over by the respondents in the year 2009. Even as

per the admitted case of the respondents, the guideline value that was

prevailing at that point of time is Rs.1,555/-, whereas, the compensation

was fixed by taking into account a lesser value of Rs.1,206/-, which was

the guideline value that was prevalent in the year 2017. The respondents

are trying to justify the same on the ground that the prevailing guideline

was taken into account while determining the compensation. This Court

is not satisfied with the said explanation given by the respondents. The

guideline value has to be fixed as on the date when the property was

taken over in the year 2009 and as on that date, the prevailing guideline

value was Rs.1,555/-.

15. This Court has already held that G.O.Ms.No.281 dated

07.09.2017 will not apply to the facts of this case since there is no

question of private negotiation where the lands have been taken over by

the respondents without following the proper procedure. Therefore, the

entitlement of the petitioner to seek for payment of interest cannot be

resisted by placing reliance upon the Government Order. Accordingly,

the petitioner will be entitled for payment of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2025 02:15:30 pm )

Writ Petition No.12757 of 2022

from the date of acquisition till 19.11.2021.

16. In the light of the above discussion, there shall be a

direction to the respondents to calculate the compensation at the rate of

Rs.1,555/-, which was the guideline value that was prevailing per sq.ft. in

the year 2009 and pay interest at the rate of 9% from the date of

acquisition till 19.11.2021 when lesser compensation amount was paid.

The balance amount that is payable to the petitioner after taking into

account the amount that has already been paid to the tune of

Rs.1,34,50,990/-, shall be paid within a period of six (6) weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order.

This writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs.