Disposed

G.Vijaya Lakshmi v. the District Collector (L.a.) Sipcot

Madras HC6 Oct 2025WP/37181/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras disposed of a writ petition filed by G.Vijaya Lakshmi against four Land Acquisition authorities. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Special Tahsildar to consider a representation dated 06.12.2023 regarding an omitted land portion of 2.27 cents from a previously settled acquisition case.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 4th Respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 06.12.2023 on merits within 4 weeks.

G.Vijaya Lakshmi Vs the District Collector (L.a.) Sipcot — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.37181 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 06.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.No.37181 of 2025

G.Vijaya Lakshmi

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector (l.A.) Sipcot Collectorate Complex, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu.

¶11

The Managing Director, Director (l.A) No.19a, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶12

The District Revenue Officer (l.A.) Sipcot Pillaipakkam, Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu.

¶13

The Special Tahsildar (la) Sipcot-sriperumbudur, Santhavellore Village, Sriperumbudur -602 105

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer:

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the 4^th Respondent to take appropriate action on petitioner representation dated 06.12.2023 to refer 2.27 cents to the competent court i/s. 18 of Land Acquisition act which was omitted.

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.37181 of 2025

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vijayraghavan For Respondent : Mr.P.Sathish, AGP for R1, 3 & 4 Mr.Abishek Murthy, GA for R2

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition has been filed to direct the 4^th Respondent to

¶23

take appropriate action on petitioner representation dated 06.12.2023

¶24

Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes

¶25

notice on behalf of the respondents 1, 3 & 4 and Mr.Abishek Murthy,

¶26

learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the 2^nd respondent.

¶27

By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the subject land of the petitioner was acquired by the 4^th respondent. Thereafter, upon receipt of information with regard to the compensation ascertained by the 4^th respondent, the petitioner had 2/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.37181 of 2025

¶31

requested them to refer the case to the competent Court. Accordingly, the

¶32

case was referred in LAOP No.678/03, 62007, 621/07, which were settled and the compensation was fixed at a sum of Rs.4,000/- per cent. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was preferred by the 4^th respondent before the Hon'ble Apex Court, whereby, the aforesaid compensation of Rs.4,000/- per cent was confirmed. Pursuant to the same, the compensation was settled to the petitioner. However, after the receipt of said amount, the petitioner found that an extent of 2.27 cents out of 14.25 cents was omitted to be referred. Therefore, a representation dated 06.10.2023 was filed before the 4^th respondent to refer the omitted portion to the Competent Court. However, the said representation was not considered by the respondent till date. Hence, this petition.

¶33

In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would request this Court to grant 4 weeks time for considering the representation of the petitioner.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.37181 of 2025

¶38

Additional Government Pleader and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

¶39

In the case on hand, the subject land of the petitioner was acquired by the 4^th respondent. Thereafter, upon receipt of information with regard to the compensation ascertained by the 4^th respondent, the petitioner had requested them to refer the case to the competent Court. Accordingly, the case was referred to LAOP Court and the compensation was fixed at a sum of Rs.4,000/- per cent and the said compensation was settled to the petitioner. However, after the receipt of said amount, the petitioner found that an extent of 2.27 cents out of 14.25 cents was omitted to be referred. Therefore, a representation dated 06.10.2023 was filed before the 4^th respondent to refer the omitted portion to the Competent Court. However, the said representation was not considered by the respondent till date.

¶40

In view of the above, this Court directs the 4^th respondent to

¶41

4/6

¶42

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

¶43

W.P.No.37181 of 2025

¶44

consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 06.12.2023, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶45

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No

¶46

cost.

¶47

06.10.2025

¶48

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No nsa

¶49

¶50

The District Collector (l.A.) Sipcot Collectorate Complex, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu.

¶51

The Managing Director, Director (l.A) No.19a, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

¶52

The District Revenue Officer (l.A.) Sipcot Pillaipakkam, Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu.

¶53

The Special Tahsildar (la) Sipcot-sriperumbudur, Santhavellore Village, Sriperumbudur -602 105

¶54

5/6

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.No.37181 of 2025

¶57

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,

¶58

nsa

¶59

W.P.No.37181 of 2025

¶60

06.10.2025

¶61

6/6

¶62

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

G.Vijaya Lakshmi v. the District Collector (L.a.) Sipcot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Vijaya Lakshmi v. the District Collector (L.a.) Sipcot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sampath Vs the District Collector

N.Sukumar Vs the District Collector

R.Elamparuthi Vs the District Collector

R.Ramasubramaniam Vs J.Radhakrishnan, I.a.S., and another

K.Manikandan Vs the Inspector General of Registration

P.S.Kumar Vs the District Collector