Mr.M.Ravi Kumar v. The District Collector,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-01-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY WP No. 46981 of 2025 and W.P.No.46992 of 2025 Mr.M.Ravi Kumar S/o.LATE MANICKASWAMY,RESIDING AT NO.116/76,MADAVARAM HIGH ROAD,PERAMBUR,CHENNAI 600 011 ..Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The District Collector, Office Of The Collector, Chennai District.
2. The District Collector, Office Of The Collector, Tiruvallur District.
3. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Secretary To Government, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
4. The Special Tahsildar (la), 1/10
Aromatic (complex) Project, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015
5. The Tahsildar, Office Of The Tahsildhar, Madhavaram, Madhavaram Taluk, Chennai 600 060 ..Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):
Mr.G.Surya Narayanan For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.R.Gokulakrishnan, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The matter is listed upon "being mentioned". Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that there are clerical and typographical errors in the order. In particular, he submits that the description of the 4th respondent is incorrect. Necessary corrections in the petition shall be carried out by learned counsel for the petitioner. He also points out that the references to W.P.No.18690 of 2021 in paragraphs 1 and 5 should be replaced with W.P.No.8283 of 2025.
2. Upon examining the records, the request of the petitioner is 2/10
liable to be accepted. Therefore, the Registry is directed to re-issue the order after making the following corrections: (i) Replace the description of the 4th respondent in the cause title with "The Special Tahsildar (LA), MMRD, Land acquired for MMRD Project, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015."
(ii) Replace W.P.No.18690 of 2021 with W.P.No.8283 of 2025 in paragraphs 1 and 5.
29-01-2026 RNA To
1. The District Collector, Office Of The Collector,Chennai District.
2. The District Collector, Office Of The Collector, Tiruvallur District.
3. The State Of Tamil Nadu, Represented By Secretary To Government, Industries Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009
4. The Special Tahsildar (LA), Aromatic (complex) Project, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015
5. The Tahsildar, 3/10
Office Of The Tahsildhar, Madhavaram, Madhavaram Taluk, Chennai 600 060
6. The Special Tahsildar (LA), MMRD, Land acquired for MMRD Project, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015.
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
RNA WP No. 46981 & 46992 of 2025 29-01-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.12.2025
CORAM
4/10
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY M.Ravi Kumar .. Petitioner vs 1.The District Collector, Office of the Collector, Chennai District.
2.The District Collector, Office of the Collector, Tiruvallur District.
3.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
4.The Special Tahsildar (LA), Aromatic (Complex) Project, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
5.The Tahsildhar, Office of the Tahsildhar, Madhavaram, Madhavaram Taluk, Chennai - 600 060.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of declaration to declare that the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation at Rs.6,100/- per cent in respect of S.Nos.87/1A, 92/2A, 176/1A2 and 176/3B, Mathur Village, Madhavaram Taluk along with solatium of 30% and interest of 12% p.a. and for writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records in Na.Ka.No.J9/22009152/2025 dated 04.11.2025, quash the same and direct the respondents to pay compensation at Rs.5,000/- per cent with solatium at 30% and interest of 12% p.a. 5/10
For Petitioner :
Mr.G.Surya Narayanan For Respondents :
Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan, Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner had approached this Court seeking consideration of representation for enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by filing W.P.No.18690 of 2021. This Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narendra and Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [(2017) 9 SCC 426] (Narendra) and directed the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass final orders within three months. The order impugned herein has been issued pursuant thereto. By such order, in respect of each relevant survey number, the request for enhanced compensation has been rejected by stating that revenue deposits were made of compensation amounts and that the request for enhanced compensation cannot be entertained.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the proceedings for enhanced compensation in L.A.O.P.No.615 of 1998 and the conclusion therein that the claimants therein are entitled to compensation at Rs.6,100/- plus solatium at 30%. Learned counsel contends that the lands forming subject of the 6/10
above mentioned LAOP are adjacent lands and that the petitioner is entitled to similar compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act. Without considering these aspects, he submits that the impugned order was issued.
3. Mr.M.R.Gokula Krishnan, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for all the respondents. In all fairness, he submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narendra was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order and that the matter warrants reconsideration on that account.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticeable that an identical conclusion has been recorded while rejecting the request for enhanced compensation for each relevant survey number. By way of illustration, the following finding in respect of Survey No.87/1A is extracted below:
@mjdhy;. g[y vz;/87-1A?f;F epy vLg;g[ rl;lg;
gphpt[ 28(A)?d; fPH; cah;kjpg;gPl;Lj; bjhif kWeph;zak; bra;J tH';f tHptif ,y;iy vd bjhptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/@
5. As is evident from the above extract, the ratio of Narendra and the direction issued by this Court in earlier W.P.No.18690 of 2021 were not taken into account. For these reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. As a corollary, 7/10
the matter is remanded to the District Collector, Chennai, for reconsideration. After taking into account the ratio of Narendra and the earlier order of this Court, fresh order shall be issued within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. This writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
04.12.2025 Index:Yes/No mmi To 1.The District Collector, Office of the Collector, Chennai District.
2.The District Collector, Office of the Collector, Tiruvallur District.
3.The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
4.The Special Tahsildar (LA), Aromatic (Complex) Project, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.
8/10
5.The Tahsildhar, Office of the Tahsildhar, Madhavaram, Madhavaram Taluk, Chennai - 600 060.
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.
mmi 9/10
04.12.2025 10/10