Pappathi @ Bathmavathi v. Union Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-04-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Pappathi @ Bathmavathi W/o. Dhanakodi, Nadu Theru, Chinnakalapet, Puducherry - 605 014.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. Union of India Rep by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.
2.Revenue Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer, Central University, Land Acquisition Wing, (Education Department), Pondicherry.
Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to pay interest to the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the acquisition of lands comprised in R. S. No. 109 / 2 for an extent of 0-16-50 hectares and in R. S. NO. 18 / 2 pt for an extent of 0-17-21 hectares at Kalapet, Puducherry, For Petitioner(s):
Ms.D.E.Anisree Sangavi, for Mr.Usharamman For Respondent(s):
Ms.Sharada Vivek, AGP
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to pay interest to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of the acquisition of lands comprised in R. S. No. 109 / 2 for an extent of 0-16-50 hectares and in R. S. NO. 18 / 2 pt for an extent of 0-17-21 hectares at Kalapet, Puducherry.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that several lands were acquired at the Kalapet Revenue Village for the establishment of the Central University invoking the urgency clause. The compensation amount was fixed and subsequently it was also enhanced. However, interest was not paid for the enhanced compensation to the land owners.
3. Further, he would submit that pending this writ petition, the issue reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Pushpavathi & others reported in 2018 (4) MLJ pg.140 held that the dispute in relation to the non award of interest could be raised by the aggrieved person by taking recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further held that the reference under Section 18 or Section 28A cannot be considered to be an alternative statutory remedy for this purpose.
4. According to the petitioner, several land owners were granted interest for the enhanced compensation and the petitioner also claimed for such interest. Since the same was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner can be directed to make a fresh representation to the respondents along with all the relevant documents and the same will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed by the respondents.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and of the fact that the matter has already reached its finality before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there shall be a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent by furnishing all the particulars along with the documents. The 2nd respondent shall consider the same in line with the earlier orders passed by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of petitioner's representation
8. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 09-04-2026 nsa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.Union of India Rep by the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.
2.Revenue Officer cum Land Acquisition Officer, Central University, Land Acquisition Wing, (Education Department), Pondicherry.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
nsa 09-04-2026