Dismissed¶41

The Commissioner of Land Administration v. C.H. Chandrasekar

Madras HC9 Jun 2026/1363/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ appeal dismissed; Clause 15 Letters Patent; W.P.No.6382 of 2026 (order dated 2.3.2026); land acquisition compensation deposit in civil court; dispute in title; right to property Article 300A; SIPCOT Mannelur Phase III Thiruvallur; Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk; District Collector Thiruvallur; followed The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5 v. Rajini Sasikanth, 2026 MHC 1778; no order as to costs; interim application C.M.P.No.12525 of 2026 closed.

What did the court decide?

In the light of (i.e., following) this Court's judgment in The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5 v. Rajini Sasikanth, this writ appeal is dismissed; there shall be no order as to costs; consequently, the interim application stands closed. ¶41

The Commissioner of Land Administration Vs C.H. Chandrasekar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6382 of 2026 (dated 2.3.2026) should be set aside in this writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The issue raised in this writ appeal was found to be squarely covered by this Court's decision in Rajini Sasikanth, wherein the Court, while dismissing a batch of writ appeals, had upheld the writ court's interference with orders directing deposit of land acquisition compensation in the civil court on the ground of a title dispute, holding such direction to tinker with the landowners' right to property under Article 300A.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Division Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ and G. Arul Murugan, J.) — W.A.No.1363 of 2026 with C.M.P.No.12525 of 2026, decided 09.06.2026. State authorities (Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk; Special District Revenue Officer SIPCOT, Thiruvallur; District Collector, Thiruvallur; Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries SIPCOT (LA) Department) filed this writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6382 of 2026 dated 2.3.2026. The Bench held the issue 'squarely covered' by its own decision in The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5 v. Rajini Sasikanth (cited as 2026 MHC 1778), in which a batch of writ appeals had been dismissed and the writ court's interference with orders directing deposit of land acquisition compensation in the civil court on the plea of a title dispute was upheld, such direction being held to tinker with the land owners' right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Following Rajini Sasikanth, this writ appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the interim application (C.M.P.No.12525 of 2026) stood closed.

¶1

W.A.No.1363 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09.06.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶8

W.A.No.1363 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.12525 of 2026

¶9

1.The Commissioner of Land Administration Chepauk,

¶10

Chennai-600 005

¶11

2.The Special District Revenue Officer SIPCOT, Mannelur, Phase III, Thiruvallur District.

¶12

3.The District Collector Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.

¶13

4.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Industries SIPCOT (LA) Department, Fort St. George,

¶14

Chennai-600 009

Appellants

1.C.H.Chandrasekar

S/o.Anjaneyaswamy

¶19

No.19A, VMK Nagar, Kathirvedu Kolathur Chennai-600 099

¶20

Page 1 of 5

¶21

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

¶22

W.A.No.1363 of 2026

¶23

2.The Chairman and Managing Director SIPCOT,

¶24

No.19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008

¶25

Respondents

¶26

PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6382 of 2026, dated 2.3.2026.

¶27

For Appellants: Mr.R.Veeramani Government Pleader

¶28

For Respondents: Mr.Abishek Murthy Standing Counsel for R2

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶31

Heard learned State counsel for the appellants and learned

¶32

counsel for the second respondent.

¶33

The issue raised in this writ appeal is squarely covered by a

¶34

decision of this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5 v. Rajini Sasikanth¹ , wherein this Court, while dismissing a batch of writ appeals, held as under:

¶35

12026 MHC 1778

¶36

Page 2 of 5

¶37

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

¶38

W.A.No.1363 of 2026

¶39

“39. Under such circumstances, the impugned orders in the writ petitions directing for deposit in the civil court holding that there is a dispute in title, definitely tinkers the right to property of the writ petitioners under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ court had rightly interfered in the impugned awards and had allowed the writ petitioners/land owners to file necessary application and withdraw the compensation amount deposited.

¶40

40. We see no error or infirmity in the orders of the writ court warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim applications are closed .”

¶41

In the light of the judgment in the case of Rajini Sasikanth (supra), this writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application stands closed.

¶42

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J) 09.06.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No bbr

¶43

_______________ Page 3 of 5_

¶44

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

¶45

W.A.No.1363 of 2026

¶46

To:

¶47