Dismissed

Urmila Bhuvanesh v. The Principal District Judge

Madras HC3 Jun 2025WP(MD)/13847/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought release of Rs.31,99,802/- compensation for acquired land in Kochadai Village, Madurai, deposited with the Principal District Judge pending a title dispute. Since the amount stood deposited, the court declined to direct disbursement and held petitioners must apply before the District Judge establishing their right. Writ petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Urmila Bhuvanesh Vs The Principal District Judge — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.13847 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.13847 of 2025

¶7

1.Urmila Bhuvanesh

¶8

2.Vikranth Neelakantan Kobla

¶9

S/o.K.L.N.Bhuvanesh Petitioners 1 & 2 represented through their Power agent Poornima Siva Prasad

¶10

3.Poornima Siva Prasad ... Petitioners

¶11

Vs.

¶12

1.The Principal District Judge, District Court Campus, Madurai.

¶13

2.The Authorized Officer

¶14

and Special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition), National Highways No.744-A, Madurai Ring Road, Madurai.

¶15

3.The Special Thasildhar (Land Acquisition), Madurai East Taluk Phase-I, 10, Electricity Nagar, Surveyor Colony, Madurai-7.

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.13847 of 2025

¶19

4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai West, Madurai District.

¶20

5.The Thasildhar, Madurai West, Madurai District. ... Respondents

¶21

Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2, 3 to release/disburse the compensation amount of Rs.31,99,802/- in respect of an extent of 380 sq meters out of the total extent of 1 acre 1 cent comprised in S.F.No.128, Kochadai Village, Madurai District deposited in the account of the first respondent within a time frame.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh

¶23

For R2 to R5 : Mrs.K.Malathi

¶24

Additional Government Pleader

¶25

For R1 : Mr.Mohaboob Athif

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners herein seek a direction to the respondents 2 and 3

¶28

to release and disburse the compensation amount of Rs.31,99,802/- in respect of the land situated in Survey Field No.128, Kochadai Village,

¶29

Page 2 of 6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD) No.13847 of 2025

¶32

Madurai District, with an extent of 380 Square Meters, which was acquired by the second respondent from them.

¶33

2.Heard the arguments of Mr.R.G.Shankar Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.Mahaboob Athif, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Mrs.K.Malathi, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 5. By consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶34

3.It is the case of the petitioners that they are the lawful owners of the above said acquired property. The revenue documents originally stood in the names of the petitioners and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is further submitted that one Jeevanandham forged the revenue documents and on the basis of the application submitted by Jeevanandham, the revenue officials mutated the revenue documents in his favour based on forged documents. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file the writ petition in WP(MD) No.4732 of 2023 challenging the order passed by the fourth

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.13847 of 2025

¶38

respondent granting patta in favour of the said Jeevanandham. The said writ petition came to be allowed in favour of the writ petitioners. In the meantime, when the said writ petition was pending, the second and third respondents deposited the compensation amount in respect of acquired land before the first respondent, on the ground that there was a dispute with regard to the person entitled to receive the compensation. Since the writ petition filed by the petitioners has been allowed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second and third respondents shall be directed to disburse the amount to the petitioners.

¶39

4.Admittedly, when the deposit was made before the first respondent, the writ petition filed by the petitioners questioning the revenue documents issued in the name of the said Jeevanandham was pending. Subsequently, the writ petition came to be allowed and order passed in favour of the Jeevanandham was set aside and the revenue officials were directed to consider the petitioners' application afresh on merits. In these circumstances, since the amount has already been deposited by the respondents 2 and 3 before the first respondent, a

¶40

_________ Page 4 of 6

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.(MD) No.13847 of 2025

¶43

direction cannot be issued to the respondents 2 and 3 to disburse the amount to the petitioners. It is always open to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the first respondent and seek withdrawal of the amount by establishing their right over the property.

¶44

5.With these observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.

¶45

No costs.

¶46

03.06.2025

¶47

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No cp To

¶48

1.The Authorized Officer and Special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition), National Highways No.744-A, Madurai Ring Road, Madurai.

¶49

2.The Special Thasildhar (Land Acquisition), Madurai East Taluk Phase-I, 10, Electricity Nagar, Surveyor Colony, Madurai-7.

¶50

_________ Page 5 of 6

¶51

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

¶52

W.P.(MD) No.13847 of 2025

¶53

S.SOUNTHAR,J

¶54

¶55

3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai West, Madurai District.

¶56

4.The Thasildhar, Madurai West, Madurai District.

¶57

W.P.(MD)No.13847 of 2025

¶58

Dated: 03.06.2025

¶59

Page 6 of 6

¶60

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

Urmila Bhuvanesh v. The Principal District Judge

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Urmila Bhuvanesh v. The Principal District Judge

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gokulnath N Vs The Commissioner of Land Reforms

Viswanath Prabhu Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Murugesan Vs The District Revenue Officer

Jenifer Vs The District Collector

Margaret Jebaraj Vs The District Collector

Al.Ar.Rm.v.Sm. Narayana Chettiar Vs The Tahsildar