S.Raju v. The Government Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :22.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA S.Raju S/o.Late.N.Siva Sankaran, No.5/3, Godown Street, Bye Pass Road, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District-635 109.
....Petitioner Vs
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Principal Secretary of Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board Rep. by its Managing Director, CMDA Building, E and C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chenani-600 107.
3.The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Bhagalur Road, Hosur-635 109.
4.The Special Tahsildar (LA) Hosur Housing Scheme, Bhagalur Road, Hosur-635 109.
Respondents 1/7
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 3.12.2025 having ref Letter No.B2 / 2330/ 2016 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the remaining compensation payable to the petitioner as per the order dated 01.04.1998 passed in L.A.O.P. No.644/ 1996 on the file of the Learned Sub Court, Hosur within a time period to be stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar For Respondent-1 : Ms.R.L.Karthika, Government Advocate.
For Respondents 2 to 4 : Mr.S.Ramachandran Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: "To issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 3.12.2025 bearing Reference Letter No.B2/2330/2016 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay the remaining compensation payable to the petitioner as per the order dated 01.04.1998 passed in L.A.O.P. No.644/ 1996 on 2/7
the file of the Sub Court, Hosur within a time period to be stipulated by this Court."
2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father, late N. Siva Sankaran, was the owner of the lands measuring an extent of 1.09 acres in S.F. No. 571/1A, Hosur Village and Taluk, then Dharmapuri District, now Krishnagiri District. The said land was acquired by the Government, and an award dated 08.04.1994 was passed, fixing the market value at Rs.2,20,536/- per hectare. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur, in L.A.O.P. No. 644 of 1996, enhanced the compensation to Rs.7,62,300/- per acre by order dated 01.04.1998. Accordingly, the petitioner became entitled to a total compensation of Rs.50,23,245/-, whereas only a sum of Rs.31,15,363/- was deposited by the respondents on 23.10.2015, leaving a substantial balance unpaid.
3. Though the learned Subordinate Judge, Hosur had directed payment of compensation within a stipulated time, the respondents neither paid the compensation directly to the petitioner nor deposited the same before the Court. The petitioner repeatedly approached the 3/7
respondents seeking payment of the remaining compensation and submitted a detailed representation dated 05.11.2024, which was not considered. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.42188 of 2025 seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the remaining compensation. This Court, by order dated 10.11.2025, disposed of the said writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks.
4. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondents called upon the petitioner to submit a calculation of amounts payable. The petitioner had submitted the calculation memo on 28.11.2025 However, without considering the calculation submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent herein had passed the impugned order dated 03.12.2025 stating that the compensation had already been calculated in accordance with G.O(Ms)No.70 dated 30.01.2008 and that a sum of Rs.34,66,213/- had been deposited before the Sub Court, Hosur on 30.09.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking the relief stated supra.
4/7
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. The petitioner, who has obtained a decree in L.A.O.P.No.644 of 1996, has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the decretal amount. The remedy available to the petitioner is to file an execution petition. Instead, the petitioner has rushed to this Court by filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, the respondents, being a public authority, are amenable to writ jurisdiction. However, the proceedings in respect of which the present writ petition has been filed relates to the execution of a decree, which cannot be enforced by way of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
22.01.2026 srn 5/7
To
1. The Principal Secretary of Government Government of Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.
2.The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board CMDA Building, E and C Market Road, Koyambedu, Chenani-600 107.
3.The Executive Engineer Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Bhagalur Road, Hosur-635 109.
4.The Special Tahsildar (LA) Hosur Housing Scheme, Bhagalur Road, Hosur-635 109.
6/7
P.T.ASHA, J., srn 22.01.2026 7/7