The Commissioner Of Land Administration v. C.H. Chandrasekar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.06.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN and C.M.P.No.12525 of 2026 1.The Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai-600 005 2.The Special District Revenue Officer SIPCOT, Mannelur, Phase III, Thiruvallur District.

3.The District Collector Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

4.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Industries SIPCOT (LA) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 Appellants Vs 1.C.H.Chandrasekar S/o.Anjaneyaswamy No.19A, VMK Nagar, Kathirvedu Kolathur Chennai-600 099

2.The Chairman and Managing Director SIPCOT, No.19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 Respondents PRAYER : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6382 of 2026, dated 2.3.2026.

For Appellants:

Mr.R.Veeramani Government Pleader For Respondents:

Mr.Abishek Murthy Standing Counsel for R2

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard learned State counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the second respondent.

2. The issue raised in this writ appeal is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5 v. Rajini Sasikanth1, wherein this Court, while dismissing a batch of writ appeals, held as under: 12026 MHC 1778

"39. Under such circumstances, the impugned orders in the writ petitions directing for deposit in the civil court holding that there is a dispute in title, definitely tinkers the right to property of the writ petitioners under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ court had rightly interfered in the impugned awards and had allowed the writ petitioners/land owners to file necessary application and withdraw the compensation amount deposited.

40. We see no error or infirmity in the orders of the writ court warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim applications are closed ."

3. In the light of the judgment in the case of Rajini Sasikanth (supra), this writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application stands closed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 09.06.2026 Index :

Yes/No :

Yes/No bbr

To:

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk, Chennai-600 005 2.The Special District Revenue Officer SIPCOT, Mannelur, Phase III, Thiruvallur District.

3.The District Collector Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

4.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Industries SIPCOT (LA) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009 5.The Chairman and Managing Director SIPCOT, No.19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

bbr 09.06.2026