Madras High CourtWP/21179/2023disposed of

V.Sathish Kumar v. The District Collector

2026-03-24Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY V.Sathish Kumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The District Collector, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Special District Revenue Officer(L.A), Hosur SIPCOT Industrial Complex, SIPCOT Phase II, IV & Kurubarapalli, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Special Tahsildar(L.A), SIPCOT Phase IV, Unit III, Shoolagiri, Krishnagiri District.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to provide Fair Compensation for the lands of the petitioner's property admeasuring an extent of 0.83 Acres at Survey No. 152/4A, situated at Attakurikki Village, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District based on the petitioner's representation dated 31.01.2023 under the Right to Fair Compensation(Rehabilitation and Resettlement)Act, 2013.

For Petitioner(s):

Ms.R.Saritha For Respondent(s):

Mr.Vadivelu Deendayalan Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to provide Fair Compensation for the lands of the petitioner's property admeasuring an extent of 0.83 Acres at Survey No. 152/4A, situated at Attakurikki Village, Shoolagiri Taluk, Krishnagiri District based on the petitioner's representation dated 31.01.2023 under the Right to Fair Compensation(Rehabilitation and Resettlement)Act, 2013.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the representation was filed, not to include the petitioner's land in the acquisition process.

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the acquisition process has already been completed and, the award amount also quantified and the same has been deposited.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this Court may atleast permit the petitioner to file appropriate application for the purpose of enhancement of compensation.

5. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has given representation only for not to include the petitioner's land in the acquisition process. However, the acquisition was completed and the award amount has also been deposited and subsequently, the property was taken over by the respondents.

6. In such being the case, the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application / representation seeking enhancement of compensation, in the event he is aggrieved by the award amount. If any such application / representation is made, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the same within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above terms. No costs. 24-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order KKN

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

KKN To

1. The District Collector, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Special District Revenue Officer(L.A), Hosur SIPCOT Industrial Complex, SIPCOT Phase II, IV & Kurubarapalli, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Special Tahsildar(L.A), SIPCOT Phase IV, Unit III, Shoolagiri, Krishnagiri District.

24-03-2026