N.Shanmugam, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

N.Shanmugam, Vs The District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: impugned order dated 19.06.2018 quashed; second to fourth respondents to pay Rs.1,50,000/- with 6% interest from the date of award (04.12.2017) till disbursement, plus Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony payable by them from their own pocket within four weeks; no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 19.06.2018 of the second respondent, which confirmed the compensation of Rs.6,19,400/- for the 19 coconut trees based on an age calculation of 18 years and refused the additional compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- agreed upon by the respondents before this Court (based on the age of trees being 23 years), can be sustained. +1 more

Court's answer

Having regard to the course of prior proceedings and the respondents' reneging on the negotiated settlement, the impugned order dated 19.06.2018 cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed; accordingly it is quashed.

Ratio / Principle

The second to fourth respondents are directed to pay the additional compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of award, i.e., 04.12.2017, until disbursement.

Key takeaways

The second to fourth respondents are additionally directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner for the mental agony suffered by him, and this amount shall be paid by them from their own pocket to the petitioner within four weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.), W.P.No.17968 of 2018, decided 19.09.2025 — Land acquisition / compensation for felled trees. Under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu State Highways Act, 2001, the Special District Revenue Officer acquired portions of the petitioner's agricultural lands in Chittalandur Village, Tiruchengode Taluk, Namakkal District. Although 19 yielding coconut trees stood on the lands, the show cause notice dated 10.09.2014 listed only 8 trees and a water tank; after objection, compensation was ordered for all 19 trees (order dated 29.08.2017), but the Horticulture Department fixed the trees' age at 18 years instead of 23 years and Rs. 6,19,400/- was deposited. In W.P.No.1709 of 2018 this Court directed official enumeration and ageing of the trees before the acquired property was used; the respondents nevertheless cut and removed all the trees, prompting W.M.P.Nos.2819 and 2820 of 2018 and a court-directed negotiation in which the respondents agreed in principle to pay an additional Rs.1,50,000/- over the Rs.6,19,400/- already paid; the miscellaneous petitions were closed on 19.03.2018. The respondents then, by order dated 19.06.2018 (Na.Ka.No.107/2018/A1), confirmed only the initial Rs.6,19,400/- (age taken as 18 years, Rs.16,300/- per tree) and refused the agreed additional sum. Held: such conduct toward a poor agriculturist warranted redress; the impugned order is unsustainable and is quashed; the second to fourth respondents are directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the award (04.12.2017) until disbursement, and Rs.1,00,000/- for the petitioner's mental agony, the latter to be paid by those officers from their own pocket within four weeks. Writ petition allowed; no costs.