Madras High Court
CRP/5534/2025 of RAVI Vs THE SPECIAL THASILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) on 9 October 2026
CRP No. 5534 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 5534 of 2025
Ravi, S/o Venkatraman,
Kallathur Village, Chengam Tk,
Thiruvannamalai Dist.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Special Thasildar (land Acquisition)
Kuppanatham Resevoir Scheme, Chengam.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order and decree dated 06.01.2025 in L.A.O.P.No.21 of 2020 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Chengam and grant such other relief deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. R. Rajarajan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Murali, Government Advocate
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 06.01.2025 passed in L.A.O.P.No.21 of 2020 by the Subordinate Judge, Chengam.
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 04:56:35 pm )
CRP No. 5534 of 2025
2. The claim petition filed by the revision petitioner in LAOP No.21 of 2020 has been dismissed by the Trial Court on the sole ground that there has been no written application preferred by the claimant under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, within the period of limitation and therefore, the reference itself has been held to be invalid, as no grievance.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner taking me through the order of reference dated 18.07.2005 in Rc/B1/5247/2022 by the Tahsildar, Sengam, invited my attention to the contents of the said representation, where, the Tahsildar had categorically recorded that the landowners have complained that the land value is far below the prevailing market value and therefore, they have requested for payment of enhanced compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. However, the Tahsildar only stated that no documentary evidence has been filed in support of the claim for enhancement at Rs.1,00,000/-.
4. It has not been disputed even by the revenue authorities that there has been a request for enhancement, which implies that the land owners are not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the authorities. In such circumstances, it is not open to the court to suomotu hold that there has been no compliance of Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, the reference itself is invalid
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 04:56:35 pm )
CRP No. 5534 of 2025
5. For the above reason, when the respondents themselves have admitted to the fact that there has been an objection to the value fixed by the authorities and have claimed enhancement, the court below ought not to have dismissed the claim petition.
6. In the light of the above, this civil revision petition is allowed with the following directions:- I) The matter is remitted to the Sub Court, Chengam for deciding the LAOP on merits and in accordance with law, Considering that the land survey acquired way back in the year 1988, the Subordinate Court shall dispose of the land acquisition proceedings, within a period of 4 months, to ensure that the land loosers are adequately compensated in accordance with law.
7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner also brings to my notice that, similarly placed land owners’ applications have also been rejected on the ground that there is no compliance of Section 18(1) of the Act.
8. In the light of the fact that the Tahsildar, Chengam himself has admitted that the land owners were aggrieved by the award passed by the authorised officer, there is no necessity for the land owners to knock at the doors of this Court each and every time, individually, for having their claim
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 04:56:35 pm )
CRP No. 5534 of 2025
petitions processed before the leanred Subordinate Judge, Chengam.
9. It is therefore made clear that the learned Subordinate Judge, Chengam shall not, hereinafter, dismiss any LAOP relating to the same Award and land acquisition proceedings, on the ground that there is no written request made by the land owners, in view of the orders passed in this civil revision petition and shall decide the respective LAOPs on its own merits and in accordance with law. 03-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The Subordinate Judge, Chengam,
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 04:56:35 pm )
CRP No. 5534 of 2025
P.B.BALAJI J. MST CRP No. 5534 of 2025 03-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 04:56:35 pm )
CRP No. 5534 of 2025
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 04:56:35 pm )
CRP. No.5534 of 2025 P.B.BALAJI.J., A mention was made by the learned Government Advocate, Mr.P.Sunil, requesting for his name to be reflected in the order passed in the revision petition, since at the time of hearing and disposing of the revision, he was the Government Advocate and not Mr.Murali.
2. In the light of the above, the name of Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate shall be substituted in the place of Mr.N.Murali, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent.
3. Registry shall issue a fresh copy of the order after incorporating necessary corrections.
4. Except for the aforesaid modifications, order dated 03.09.2026, remains unaltered in all other respects. 09.10.2026 rkp
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 04:56:35 pm )
P.B.BALAJI.J., rkp CRP. No.5534 of 2025 09.10.2026
( Uploaded on: 14/10/2026 04:56:35 pm )