Dismissed¶38

S.Parvathi v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC4 Dec 2025WP/46108/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court dismisses writ petition seeking mandamus for consideration of representation dated 22.09.2023 for re-conveyance under Section 48(B) of Land Acquisition Act 1894; land acquired for Ennore Port Trust staff quarters; awards of 1999 and 2003; compensation deposited in Treasury; petition filed more than two decades later; Section 101 of Act 30 of 2013 held inapplicable to 1894 Act acquisitions; 1894 Act repealed; Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129 relied on via State counsel; dismissed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Section 101 of Act 30 of 2013 is inapplicable to proceedings under the 1894 Act, and the 1894 Act has been repealed; accordingly the petitioner's request for re-conveyance cannot be countenanced. ¶36

S.Parvathi Vs the Secretary to Government — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 22.09.2023 seeking re-conveyance of land under Section 48(B) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

As the awards were issued in 1999 and 2003, compensation was deposited in the Treasury, and the writ petition was filed more than two decades later, the petitioner's request cannot be countenanced.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Section 101 of Act 30 of 2013 is inapplicable to proceedings under the 1894 Act, and the 1894 Act has been repealed; accordingly the petitioner's request for re-conveyance cannot be countenanced.

¶36

Key takeaways

The writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

WP No. 46108 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Madras, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J., 04-12-2025) — Land acquisition — Re-conveyance under Section 48(B), Land Acquisition Act 1894. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary to Government, Transport Department (1st respondent) to consider and pass orders on her representation dated 22.09.2023 seeking re-conveyance of land acquired under the 1894 Act for constructing staff quarters for employees of the Ennore Port Trust; counsel submitted the lands were not used for that purpose and she remains in occupation. Counsel for the State, invoking Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & others, (2020) 8 SCC 129, submitted that Section 101 of Act 30 of 2013 is not applicable to an acquisition under the 1894 Act. The Court held that the awards were issued in 1999 and 2003, compensation was deposited in the Treasury, and the writ petition was filed more than two decades later; further, Section 101 of Act 30 of 2013 is inapplicable to proceedings under the 1894 Act, which has been repealed. The petitioner's request could not be countenanced. Writ petition dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶1

WP No. 46108 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

WP No. 46108 of 2025

¶7

S.Parvathi, W/o. Sudhakar. No 10. Athipattu Reddypalayam, Vallur Post, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District 600 120.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Secretary To Government, Transport Department, St. George Fort, Chennai 600 009.

¶11

2.The Chairman, Ennore Port Trust, Ennore, Chennai.

¶12

3.The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶13

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, O/o. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ponneri, Thiruvallur District.

¶14

..Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 46108 of 2025

¶19

consider and pass order on the petitioner representation dated 22.09.2023 which

¶20

is seeking re-convey of Land U/s. 48 (B) of Land Acquisition Act 1894.

¶21

For Petitioner:	Mr. R.Sethuvarayar
For Respondents:	Mr.Abishek Murthy, Government Advocate
	for R1,R3 &R4

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner seeks a direction for the consideration of the representation

¶24

dated 22.09.2023 for re-conveyance under Section 48B of the Land Acquisition

¶25

Act, 1894 (the 1894 Act).

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands earlier owned

¶27

by the petitioner were acquired under the 1894 Act for purposes for constructing

¶28

staff quarters for employees of the Ennore Port Trust. He submits further that

¶29

the lands were not used for the said purpose and that the petitioner is still in

¶30

occupation thereof.

¶31

Mr.Abishek Murthy, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts

¶32

Page 2 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

WP No. 46108 of 2025

¶35

notice for all the respondents. By referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & others, (2020) 8 SCC 129 , he submits that Section 101 of Act 30 of 2013 is not applicable to an acquisition under the 1894 Act. Therefore, he submits that the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be countenanced.

¶36

On perusal of the affidavit in support of the writ petition, it is evident that the award was issued in 1999 and 2003. It is also clear that compensation was deposited in the Treasury. The present writ petition has been filed more than two decades later. In these circumstances, the request of the petitioner cannot be countenanced especially in view of the inapplicability of Section 101 of Act 30 of 2013 to proceedings under the 1894 Act, and the repeal of the 1894

¶37

Act.

¶38