← Library
Madras High CourtWP/1041/2020disposed of

M/S.Serene Estates Pvt Ltd v. Government Of Tamil Nadu,

2026-03-05Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-03-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 1041 & 1045 of 2020 AND WMP NO. 1255 OF 2020 M/s.Serene Estates Pvt Ltd Rep. by its Authorised Signatory (Previously Known as Zillion Estate Pvt Ltd., and Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd) NSL ICOn 4th Floor 8-2-684 / 2/A, Road, No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hydereabd 500034.

Petitioner(s) in both cases Vs

1. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary (Energy Department,), Fort St. George, Chennai 600009.

2.Tantransco, Rep. by its Managing Direcotor, NPKRR Maaligai, No.144, Anna Salai, chennai 600002.

3.The Superintendent Engineer (I/C) General construction Circle (GCC) II, TANTRANSCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, A-10, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

4.District Magistrate (Collector), 62, Rajaji Salai, Fourth Floor, Chennai 600 001.

Respondent(s) in both cases

COMMON PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, To direct the respondents to assess the extent of Schedule Property, which cannot be used for any construction and calculate and pay the compensation to the petitioner as per section 30 (2) and First Schedule of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiliation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within a specified time frame.

To direct the respondents to assess the extent of Schedule Property, which cannot be used for any construction and calculate and pay the compensation to the petitioner as per section 30 (2) and First Schedule of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiliation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within a specified time frame.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.JP.Karunakaran For Respondent(s):

Mr.C.Gowthamaraja, GA for R1 & 4 Mr.D.R.Arunkumar, St.counsel, for R2 & 3 COMMON ORDER These writ petitions have been filed to direct the respondents to assess the extent of Schedule Property, which cannot be used for any construction and calculate and pay the compensation to the petitioner as per section 30(2) and First Schedule of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiliation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, initially, the respondent had intend to utilise the petitioner's subject land for the purpose of erecting the Electrical High Transmission Lines, due to which, he had faced great hardship and inconvenience. In this regard, a representation dated 13.01.2018 was filed by the petitioner, requesting the respondents to determine the compensation for the subject land. Subsequently, the said representation was rejected by virtue of order dated 15.03.2018 by stating that the compensation would be paid to the tower leg occupied area and line corridor after the completion of erection of towers in the subject land.

3. Further, he would contend that now, the erection of tower was completed by the respondent and hence, in terms of the aforesaid rejection order dated 15.03.2018, the respondents are supposed to have determined compensation for the subject land. Hence, this petition. In support of his submissions, he referred to the order dated 05.10.2023 passed in WP(MD)No.4715 of 2020.

4. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent had fairly admitted and confirmed the submission made by the petitioner and would submit that the petitioner's representation dated 13.01.2018 will be considered afresh by the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

6. In the cases on hand, initially, prior to the erection of Electrical High Transmission Lines in the subject land, a representation dated 13.01.2018 was filed by the petitioner before the respondents for determination of compensation. The said representation was rejected by stating that the compensation will be determined, for the tower leg occupied area and line corridor, only after the completion of erection of towers in the subject land.

7. Now, it was submitted by the respondents that the installation of tower at the subject land was completed and hence, the respondents will determine compensation by considering the petitioner's representation dated 13.01.2018 afresh.

8. In view of the above, this Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 13.01.2018 afresh and determine compensation by taking into consideration of the law laid down by this Court vide order dated 05.10.2023 passed in WP(MD)No.4715 of 2020 after affording sufficient opportunities to the petitioner, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 05-03-2026 nsa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary (Energy Department,), Fort St. George, Chennai 600009.

2.Tantransco, Rep. by its Managing Direcotor, NPKRR Maaligai, No.144, Anna Salai, chennai 600002.

3.The Superintendent Engineer (I/C) General construction Circle (GCC) II, TANTRANSCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, A-10, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

4.District Magistrate (Collector), 62, Rajaji Salai, Fourth Floor, Chennai 600 001.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.

nsa WP No. 1041 & 1045 of 2020 05-03-2026