Madras High Court
Pushpawathie Narendra vs The Secretary on 27 November, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam
W.A.No.1497 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 27.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A.No.1497of 2022
Pushpawathie Narendra,
Liquidator,
Neikarapatty Dairies (Private) Ltd.,
(In voluntary Liquidation)
No.141/3, GEO Colony,
Jagir Ammampalayam,
Salem – 2. ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The Secretary, Revenue Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms),
36, Bharthi Ula Salai,
Race Course Colony,
Madurai – 2. ..Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act, 1865 to
set aside the order dated 24.08.2021 of this Court made in W.P.No.10799 of
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
W.A.No.1497 of 2022
2011 and consequently, allow the W.P.No.10799 of 2011 as prayed for.
For Appellant : Ms.E.Yuvarani
for Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran
For Respondents : Mr.T.Arunkumar,
Additional Government Pleader
for R1 & R2
JUDGMENT
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
The present writ appeal had been instituted against the writ order
dated 24.08.2021 passed in W.P.No.10799 of 2011.
2. The writ petitioner is the appellant and the relief sought for in the writ
petition is relating to the notification passed by the Government in
G.O.Ms.No.1966, Revenue Department dated 10.09.1981 under Section
18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act,
1961 and published in the Tamil Nadu Government gazette No.21-A Part II
– Section 1, Supplement dated 05.06.1996 and the order dated 23.11.2000
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
in SRP No.21 of 2000 of the Land Reforms Special Tribunal, Chennai. The
petitioner challenged the same insofar as it relate to the determination of
amount payable for the land acquired from the petitioner and consequently,
direct the respondents herein to determine afresh under S.50 of the Act, the
amount payable to the petitioner for the lands acquired in terms of the
provisions of unamended Schedule III of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms
(Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act, 1961 as it was in force at the time of
publication of the notification in G.O.Ms.no.1286 Revenue dated
20.03.1973 under S.18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of
Ceiling of Land) Act 1961 in Supplement to Part III of the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette No.12-(B) dated 28.03.1973 and pay the difference
amount in compensation with statutory interest as provided under Law
applicable upto 10 years w.e.f. 11.05.1973 and equitable interest at the rate
of 11 percent for the period beyond 10 years commencing from 11.05.1983
and upto the date of actual payment of difference in compensation to be
nd
redetermined by the 2 respondent therein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant
had received compensation from the year 1986. However, their lands were
taken over by the Government in the year 1973. Since the Government had
taken possession of the land in the year 1973, the interest amount should
be calculated from the year 1973.
4. Learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that Section
18(3) Notification was quashed at the instance of the appellant and
subsequently, fresh notification was issued on 05.06.1996 and the
compensation had been settled in pursuance to the notification of the year
1996 along with other eligible benefits under the Act and they have received
the compensation. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is not
only belated but to be construed as stale claim.
5. Initially, notification was issued in the year 1973. The said notification
came to be challenged and subsequently, quashed by the Court at the
instance of the appellant. Revised notification was issued in the year 1996
and based on the said notification, compensation along with interest had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
been settled in favour of the appellant. That being so, claiming interest after
a lapse of several years by filing a writ petition in the year 2011 is not
entertainable and therefore, the writ Court has rightly dismissed the Writ
Petition which requires no further interference. Consequently, Writ Appeal
stands dismissed. No costs.
(S.M.S.,J.) (M.S.Q.,J.)
27-11-2025
vsi
To
1. The Secretary, Revenue Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 9.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (Land Reforms),
36, Bharthi Ula Salai,
Race Course Colony,
Madurai – 2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
vsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
27-11-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/11/2025 05:46:28 pm )
