Vanaja v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN W.P.No.20967 of 2019 and WMP.Nos.20153 & 27265 of 2019 Vanaja ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District 2.State rep by its Special Thasildar Land Acquisition, O/o the Special Thasildar Land Acquistion, Oragadam Industrial Park road, Infrastructure Plan, Sriperumbuthur Taluk, Kancheepuram District ... Respondents PRAYER:

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records on the file of the second respondent made in Na.Ka.No.63/2017/A dated 01.02.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to pay adequate compensation and alternate accommodation for acquiring the petitioner land which is an extent of 10 cents of land in survey 1/6

No.57/2B, Oragadam village.

For Petitioner : M/s.Selvi George For Respondents : Mr.S.Rajesh, Government Advocate

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 01.02.2019 and for direction to the respondents to give alternate accommodation for acquiring the petitioner's land admeasuring 10 cents comprised in survey No.57/2B situated at Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

2.

The petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring 10 cents comprised in survey No.57/2B situated at Oragadam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. She had also planted few trees in the subject land. The petitioner also constructed a house in the subject property and she is living there. While being so, the subject land was acquired for the purpose of extension of 2/6

road as per the provision of The Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001 by notification under Section 15 of the Tamilnadu Highways Act, 2001. However, the petitioner was not paid any compensation. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representation seeking compensation and also alternative accommodation. It was rejected by the second respondent. 3.

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused all the materials placed before this Court. 4.

On perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that the subject land was classified as Thoppu Poramboke and the subject land is not even mentioned in the notification issued under Section 15(2) of the Tamilnadu Highways Act. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation for the subject land. Hence, the second respondent rightly rejected the request made by the petitioner and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. 5.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that still the subject land is in possession of the petitioner. Therefore, if the respondents wants to acquired the said land, it should be in 3/6

accordance with law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11.09.2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order lok 4/6

To 1.The District Collector, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District 2.State rep by its Special Thasildar Land Acquisition, O/o the Special Thasildar Land Acquistion, Oragadam Industrial Park road, Infrastructure Plan, Sriperumbuthur Taluk, Kancheepuram District 5/6

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

lok 11.09.2025 6/6