Dismissed

P.Kasturi Bai v. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd.

Madras HC13 Oct 2025WP/38329/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to consider a representation for enhancing compensation for land acquired for the Metro Rail Project. The court dismissed the petition as infructuous as the award had already been referred to the competent court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous because the award was already referred to the Competent Court.

P.Kasturi Bai Vs Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.38329 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 13.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.No.38329 of 2025

¶7

1.P.Kasturi Bai 2.P.Santhana Mary

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Chennai Metro Rail Ltd Rep By Its Managing Director No.327, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035

¶11

The Special District Revenue Officer Land Acquisition Officer, Chennai Metro Rail Ltd, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035

¶12

The State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Its Secretary To Government, Department Of Industries And Commerce, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

Prayer:

¶15

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2^nd respondent to forthwith consider the petitioners representation dated 19.7.2025 and refer Award No.C5/031/2022 to the appropriate court for enhancement of

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.No.38329 of 2025

¶19

compensation as provided under section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial purposes Act 1997 within a time frame to be stipulated by this Honble court

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Richardson Wilson

¶21

For Respondent : Mr.B.Vijay, St.counsel for R1 & Mr.P.Sathish, AGP, for R2 & R3

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition has been filed to direct the 2^nd respondent to forthwith consider the petitioners' representation dated 19.7.2025 and refer Award No.C5/031/2022 to the appropriate court for enhancement of compensation as provided under section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial purposes Act 1997.

¶24

Mr.B.Vijay, learned Standing counsel, takes notice on behalf of the 1^st respondent and Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government

¶25

Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 2 & 3.

¶26

2/6

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.No.38329 of 2025

¶29

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

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the 1^st respondent had acquired a portion of the petitioner's land for Metro Rail Project. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent had passed an award dated 20.07.2023 by fixing the compensation for the aforesaid acquisition of land. Subsequently, a representation dated 19.07.2025 was filed before the 2^nd respondent to refer the award to the Competent Court for enhancement of compensation. However, the said representation was not considered by the respondent till date. Hence, this petition.

¶31

On the other hand, after taking instructions from the Department, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that in this case, the aforesaid award was already referred to the LAOP Court on 26.08.2025 and hence, the prayer in this writ petition has become infructuous.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶33

3/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.No.38329 of 2025

¶36

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

¶37

Today, it was submitted by the learned Additional Government

¶38

Pleader appearing for the respondent that the award was already referred to the Competent Court by the 2^nd respondent on 26.08.2025 and hence, the prayer in this petition has become infructuous.

¶39

By recording the above submission, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No cost.

¶40

13.10.2025

¶41

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

¶42

¶43

Managing Director,

¶44

4/6

¶45

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

¶46

W.P.No.38329 of 2025

¶47

Chennai Metro Rail Ltd No.327, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035

¶48

The Special District Revenue Officer Land Acquisition Officer, Chennai Metro Rail Ltd, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035

¶49

3.The Secretary to Government, The State Of Tamilnadu Department Of Industries And Commerce, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009

¶50

5/6

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.No.38329 of 2025

¶53

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,

¶54

nsa

¶55

W.P.No.38329 of 2025

¶56

13.10.2025

¶57

6/6

¶58

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

P.Kasturi Bai v. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Kasturi Bai v. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Antony Camilten Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Kalimuthu Vs the Inspector General of Registration

S.Gowriammal Vs the Inspector General of Registration

P.Ramesh Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Registration

S.Siddeshkumar Vs the Secretary to Government

R.Palanisamy Vs the Inspector General of Registration