Allowed¶40

The Ramco Cements Limited v. The Competent Authority cum

Madras HC18 Jul 2025CRP(MD)/1984/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; restoration of application dismissed for default; Section 5 Limitation Act; Order 9 Rule 9 CPC; Section 3G(5) National Highways Act 1956; land acquisition compensation; land loser entitled to fair compensation; lenient view of delay; conditional restoration with Rs.10,000 cost to District Legal Services Authority Tirunelveli; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; Justice M. Dhandapani; 2025.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order dated 08.08.2024 in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Ar.O.P.No.79 of 2020 set aside subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority, Tirunelveli within two weeks; upon production of the payment receipt, the trial Court to restore I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Ar.O.P.No.79 of 2020 and dispose of the O.P. in accordance with law; no order as to costs.

The Ramco Cements Limited Vs The Competent Authority cum — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the common fair and final order dated 08.08.2024 of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Ar.O.P.No.79 of 2020 (dismissing the delay-condonation and restoration applications) should be set aside. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Civil Revision Petition allowed; the trial Court's order dated 08.08.2024 in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Ar.O.P.No.79 of 2020 is set aside on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.10,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority, Tirunelveli within two weeks; upon production of the payment receipt, the trial Court is directed to restore the I.A. and dispose of the O.P. in accordance with law.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Delay has to be leniently viewed and parties must be given an opportunity to contest the case; the petitioner-company, being the land loser, is entitled to fair compensation.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC against dismissal of I.A.No.4 of 2023 (condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) and I.A.No.5 of 2023 (restoration under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC) sought in Ar.O.P.No.79 of 2020, an appeal under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 against compensation awarded for acquired lands. The Ar.O.P. had been dismissed for default on 30.09.2022 owing to the petitioner's non-appearance, the hearing date having been wrongly noted by junior Counsel. Held: delay must be leniently viewed so that parties are given an opportunity to contest, and the petitioner-company, admittedly the land loser, is entitled to fair compensation. CRP allowed; order dated 08.08.2024 set aside on condition of payment of Rs.10,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority, Tirunelveli within two weeks; on production of the receipt, the trial Court to restore the I.A. and dispose of the O.P. in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶1

C.R.P.(MD)No. 1984 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 21.07.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

C.R.P.NPDNo.1984 of 2025

¶7

The Ramco Cements Ltd.,

¶8

Formerly known as Madras Cements Ltd.,

¶9

Represented through it's Senior General Manager,

¶10

(Admin & Accounts),

¶11

R.R.Nagar, Virudhunagar District. ...Petitioner

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.The Competent Authority Cum Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition (N.H.47B), Land Acquisition office, Nagercoil.

¶14

2.The National Highways Authority of India, Represented through it's Project Director, Indian National Highways Board, Madurai.

¶15

1/7

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

C.R.P.(MD)No. 1984 of 2025

¶18

3.The Arbitrator / District Collector,

¶19

Tirunelveli District.

¶20

...Respondents

¶21

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the CPC, praying to allow the CRP with costs by setting aside the common fair order and final order passed by the Hon'ble Principal District Court, Tirunelveli made in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Ar.O.P.No.79 of 2020 dated 08.08.2024.

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Sivaji For Respondents 1 & 3 : Mr.B.Saravanan

¶23

For Respondent No.2 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the common fair and final order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Ar.O.P.No.79 of 2020 dated 08.08.2024.

¶26

2/7

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

C.R.P.(MD)No. 1984 of 2025

¶29

¶30

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner / company would submit that the petitioner / company is the landlord. The petitioner's / company's lands were acquired by the National Highways. As against the compensation granted, the petitioner / landlord preferred appeal before the Arbitrator / District Collector, Tirunelveli, as per Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The arbitrator passed an award. However, being aggrieved by the arbitration award, the petitioner / company filed an appeal in Ar.O.P.No.79 of 2020, before the District Judge, Tirunelveli. However, the petitioner has not appeared for the hearing on 30.09.2022, since the hearing date was wrongly noted by the junior Counsel. Hence, the Ar.O.P. was dismissed for default on 30.09.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner / company preferred I.A.No.4 of 2023, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay in filing the petition to restore the Ar.O.P.No.79 of 2020 and I.A.No.5 of 2023, under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC, to restore the Ar.O.P.No.79 of 2020. Both the said I.As were dismissed. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶31

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner / company would submit that the

¶32

lower Court dismissed the condone delay petition stating that the delay was not properly explained. However, the petitioner / company would submit that the

¶33

3/7

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

C.R.P.(MD)No. 1984 of 2025

¶36

petitioner / company is the landlord and if the appeal is dismissed, the petitioner will not be able to get proper compensation despite having lost their lands. Hence, he prays that the order of the trial Court needs to be interfered with. He would further submit that the petitioner / company is ready to pay any reasonable cost imposed by this Court for allowing the condone delay petition.

¶37

4. Learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents would

¶38

vehemently contend that the delay was not properly explained and thereby, the trial Court has rightly dismissed those applications.

¶39

5. Heard the learned Counsel on either side.

¶40

6.Repeatedly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has held that the delay has to be leniently viewed and the parties must be given an opportunity to contest the case. Admittedly, the petitioner / company is the land loser and they are entitled for a fair compensation. Considering the above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Ar.O.P.No.79 of 2020 dated 08.08.2024 is set aside, on condition that the petitioner pays a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority, Tirunelveli, within a period of two [2] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon production of the payment receipt, the trial Court is directed to restore I.A.No.4 of 2023 in Ar.O.P.No.79 of 2020 dated 08.08.2024 and

¶41

also dispose of the O.P. in accordance with law. There shall be no order as

¶42

4/7

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

C.R.P.(MD)No. 1984 of 2025

¶45

to costs.

¶46

21.07.2025