Disposed¶29

A.Lilly Pushpam v. the Competent Authority and

Madras HC11 Dec 2025WP/47928/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, WP No. 47928 of 2025, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J., decided 11-12-2025. Land acquisition compensation recovery; National Highways, Tiruvallur; compensation paid to vendor Varadharajulu; purchaser A.Lilly Pushpam; sale deed dated 21.11.2003; Article 226 mandamus; remedy is civil recovery from vendor, not writ against Competent Authority; exclusion of limitation time for steps taken before revenue authority.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus granted; petition disposed of without costs, leaving the petitioner free to initiate appropriate recovery proceedings against the second respondent, with liberty to rely on steps taken through the first respondent for exclusion of time in a civil suit. ¶29

A.Lilly Pushpam Vs the Competent Authority and — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the first respondent to initiate recovery proceedings against the second respondent, recover the compensation allegedly obtained by suppressing the sale deed dated 21.11.2003, and disburse it to the petitioner as lawful owner of the acquired land. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs, leaving it open to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings against the second respondent for recovery; no mandamus directing the first respondent to recover and disburse the compensation was issued.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

In course of acquisition proceedings, notice is typically issued to the person whose name is reflected in the revenue records; where compensation was paid to the second respondent on that basis, the petitioner's remedy is to recover the amount from his vendor.

¶25

Key takeaways

It is open to the petitioner to cite the steps taken to recover the amount through the first respondent as justification for the exclusion of that time period while prosecuting the civil suit.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land acquisition – compensation for acquired land paid to second respondent (vendor) although petitioner held sale deed dated 21.11.2003 – writ of mandamus sought under Article 226 to compel the Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways, Tiruvallur to recover the compensation and disburse it to the petitioner – Held: in acquisition proceedings notice typically issues to the person reflected in the revenue records, and the purchaser's remedy is to recover the compensation from his vendor; writ petition disposed of without costs; steps taken through the first respondent may be cited as justification for exclusion of time while prosecuting a civil suit.

¶1

WP No. 47928 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 11-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

WP No. 47928 of 2025

¶7

A.Lilly Pushpam, W/o.Aruldoss, No.246, Railway Station Road, Keezhmuthalampedu Grama, Madura Kavarapettai Village, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Tiruvallur District 601206.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways, Tiruvallur.

¶11

2.Varadharajulu, S/o.Ramachandran, 76/10, Balaji Nagar, Minjur, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District 601203.

¶12

..Respondents

¶13

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to initiate recovery proceedings against the 2nd respondent and recover the compensation amount illegally obtained by him by conducting an enquiry regarding the illegal disbursement of compensation to the 2nd respondent and consequently disburse the compensation to the petitioner, being the lawful owner of the acquired land by considering petitioner’s representations dated 28.11.2019, 22.02.2023 and 02.10.2024.

For Petitioner:

Mr.S.Vijay Anand

Page 1 of 4

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

¶18

WP No. 47928 of 2025

¶19

For Respondents:

¶20

Mr.P.Sathish, AGP for R1

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner asserts that he purchased lands that were subsequently acquired under sale deed dated 21.11.2003. Because the compensation was paid to the second respondent in respect thereof, the petitioner submitted representations to the first respondent for recovery thereof. The present writ petition relates thereto.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent received the compensation by suppressing sale deed dated 21.11.2003. Therefore, he submits that the first respondent is under an obligation to recover the same from the second respondent and pay it over to the petitioner.

¶24

Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the first respondent. He submits that the petitioner should have instituted a proceeding against the second respondent for recovery.

¶25

In course of acquisition proceedings, notice is typically issued to the person whose name is reflected in the revenue records. If compensation was paid to the second respondent on such basis, the petitioner’s remedy would be to recover the said amount from his vendor. By leaving it open to the petitioner to

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 47928 of 2025

¶29

initiate appropriate proceedings against the second respondent for such recovery, this writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs. It will be open to the petitioner to cite the steps taken by him to recover the amount through the first respondent as justification for the exclusion of such time period while prosecuting the civil suit.

¶30

11-12-2025

¶31

Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶32

¶33

¶34

The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways, Tiruvallur.

¶35

Page 3 of 4

¶36

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