Disposed

Mrs.D.Kanthammal v. the District Collector

Madras HC19 Nov 2025WP/44459/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition concerning land acquired under the SIPCOT Scheme in 2001 where compensation was sanctioned but not disbursed and an employment recommendation was not acted upon. The court directed respondents to consider the petitioner's representations on merits within six weeks and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to dispose of petitioner's representations on merits within 6 weeks; no costs.

Mrs.D.Kanthammal Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.44459 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 19.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

W.P.No.44459 of 2025

Mrs.D.Kanthammal

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector Collectorate Office, Kanchipuram 631501.

¶11

The Chairman, Sipcot (state Industries Promotion Corporation Of Tamil Nadu) No.19-a, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, Post Box No. 7223, Egmore, Chennai 600008.

¶12

The Special Tahsildhar (land Acquisition) Sipcot, Sriperumbudur, Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram 602117.

¶13

The District Special Revenue Officer Sipcot, Sipcot Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Chennai 602117.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer:

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, Directing the respondents to

¶17

1/7

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.44459 of 2025

¶20

consider the petitioners representation dated 01.07.2025 and 29.08.2025 consequently grant or render fair compensation in line with present guideline value and employment in accordance with the recommendations of SIPCOT, in respect of the acquired land situated at measuring 911 square meters in S.No. 146/6B, 7B, 7C and 8B No.154. Sirumangadu Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District

¶21

For Petitioner : Ms.N.Radha

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the petitioners representation dated 01.07.2025 and 29.08.2025.

¶25

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

¶26

notice on behalf of the respondents 1, 3 & 4. Mr.Abishek Murthy, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the 2^nd respondent.

¶27

2/7

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.No.44459 of 2025

¶30

By consent of the parties, the main writ petition has been taken

¶31

up for disposal at the stage of admission itself.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, initially, the subject land was purchased by the petitioner's mother in the year 1985. Thereafter, the said land was acquired under the SIPCOT Scheme in the year 2001. After several representations, a meagre compensation of Rs.7,472/- was sanctioned vide letter dated 25.07.2020. However, the same has not been disbursed to the petitioner's mother till date.

¶33

Further, considering the educational qualification of the petitioner, the SIPCOT had recommended her case for employment consideration. However, no effective steps had been taken in this regard till date. Hence, without any other option, the present petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 01.07.2025 & 29.08.2025 and grant fair compensation and provide suitable employment as assured.

¶34

3/7

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.No.44459 of 2025

¶37

In reply, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the

¶38

respondents would submit that the petitioner's representation will be considered within a period of 6 weeks.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶40

Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and also perused the entire materials available on record.

¶41

In the case on hand, initially, the subject land was purchased by

¶42

the petitioner's mother in the year 1985. Thereafter, the said land was acquired under the SIPCOT Scheme in the year 2001. After several representations, a meagre compensation of Rs.7,472/- was sanctioned vide letter dated 25.07.2020. However, the same has not been disbursed to the petitioner's mother till date. Further, by considering the educational qualification of the petitioner, the SIPCOT had recommended her case for employment consideration. However, no effective steps had been taken in this regard till date.

¶43

4/7

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.44459 of 2025

¶46

In view of the above, this Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner's representations dated 01.07.2025 and 29.08.2025 and dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

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

¶48

cost.

¶49

19.11.2025

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

The District Collector Collectorate Office, Kanchipuram 631501.

¶53

The Chairman, Sipcot (state Industries Promotion Corporation Of Tamil Nadu) No.19-a, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, Post Box No. 7223, Egmore, Chennai 600008.

¶54

5/7

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.No.44459 of 2025

¶57

The Special Tahsildhar (land Acquisition) Sipcot, Sriperumbudur, Irungattukottai, Kanchipuram 602117.

¶58

The District Special Revenue Officer Sipcot, Sipcot Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Chennai 602117.

¶59

6/7

¶60

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

¶61

W.P.No.44459 of 2025

¶62

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,

¶63

nsa

¶64

W.P.No.44459 of 2025

¶65

19.11.2025

¶66

7/7

¶67

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

Mrs.D.Kanthammal v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs.D.Kanthammal v. the District Collector

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

V.Venkatagiri Vs the State Rep. by Its Secretary

K.Balamurugan, Vs Mr. Shyamsundar and 2 others

Subramaniayan Vs Deputy Inspector General of Registration

M.Indra Vs Union of India

Green and Brown Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Secretary Housing and Urban Department

S.Marappa Gounder(died) S/o.Sellakumara Gounder Vs the District Collector