Allowed¶36

Thanagaswamy S/O.Dhanapal v. Mathivalli W/O.Veerasamy

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Entitlement

Madras HC6 Apr 2026AS/1150/2004

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, K. Kumaresh Babu J., 06.04.2026, A.S.No.1150 of 2004 (with C.M.P.No.19247 of 2004) under S.54 Land Acquisition Act. Reference Court judgment dated 10.02.2004 in L.A.O.P.No.291 of 2002 (Sub-Judge, Viruthachalam) set aside; appeal allowed. Compensation for government-acquired land awarded to appellant Thangaswamy, who proved 1994 purchase under Ex.C2 and possession via patta/chitta/adangal (Ex.C3-C5); respondents 2 and 3 (Sethuvarayan, Shanmugam) failed to prove heirship of Lakshmana Padayachi named in Ex.C1. No order as to costs; respondents 1-3 set ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Appellant entitled to receive the compensation fixed for the acquisition of the land; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.19247 of 2004) closed. ¶36

Thanagaswamy S/O.Dhanapal Vs Mathivalli W/O.Veerasamy — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appellant entitled to receive the compensation fixed for the acquisition of the land; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.19247 of 2004) closed.

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant or respondent Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to compensation for the land acquired by the Government/fourth respondent. +2 more

¶22

Court's answer

The judgment dated 10.02.2004 passed in L.A.O.P.No.291 of 2002 by the Sub-Judge, Viruthachalam, stands set aside, the Appeal Suit stands allowed, and as a sequel the appellant is entitled to receive the compensation fixed for the acquisition of the land.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 did not substantiate that they are the legal heirs of Lakshmana Padayachi, in whose name Ex.C1 stood, nor did they produce any document or revenue record to prove their possession of the acquired property.

¶35

Key takeaways

The appellant substantiated that after his purchase in the year 1994 under Ex.C2 he had been in possession of the property, supported by the revenue records Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 (patta, chitta and adangal).ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition - Compensation - Entitlement - Appeal Suit under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against Reference Court judgment dated 10.02.2004 in L.A.O.P.No.291 of 2002 (Sub-Judge, Viruthachalam), which rejected the appellant's claim and apportioned compensation to respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the basis of Ex.C1, a sale deed standing in the name of one Lakshmana Padayachi. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 marked no document proving they were legal heirs of Lakshmana Padayachi or in possession; the appellant, the first claimant (C.W.2), proved his purchase in 1994 under Ex.C2 and possession through revenue records Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 (patta, chitta, adangal). Held: Reference Court judgment set aside; Appeal Suit allowed; appellant entitled to the compensation fixed for the acquisition; no order as to costs; connected C.M.P.No.19247 of 2004 closed. (K. Kumaresh Babu, J.; decided 06.04.2026.)

¶1

A.S.No.1150 of 2004

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 06.04.2026

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

A.S.No.1150 of 2004

¶7

and C.M.P.No.19247 of 2004

Thangaswamy

.. Appellant

Versus

Mathivalli

¶12

Sethuvarayan

¶13

Shanmugam

¶14

Special Tahsildar No.2, (Land Acquisition Officer), Neyveli. .. Respondents

¶15

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act to allow the first appeal setting aside the decree and judgment, dated 10.02.2004 passed in L.A.O.P.No.291 of 2002 by the Court of Sub-Judge, Viruthachalam, Cuddalore District.

¶16

For Appellant : Mr.P.Ganapathy For Respondents : No Appearance for RR-1 to 3 : Mr.M.Murali, Government Advocate for R4

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

A.S.No.1150 of 2004

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The instant Appeal Suit has been filed challenging the award made

¶22

by the Reference Court rejecting the claim of the appellant for compensation to the property that was acquired by the Government and holding the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to be entitled for compensation based upon Ex.C1.

¶23

Heard Mr.P.Ganapathy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.Murali, learned Government Advocate for the fourth respondent. The respondent Nos.1 to 3, inspite of having been served with notice, had neither entered appearance nor represented today and they were called absent. Hence, they were set ex parte.

¶24

It is the case of the appellant that the property was purchased by him under Ex.C2 and he had also relied upon Ex.C3 to Ex.C5 which were the revenue records such as patta, chitta, adangal which had preceded the acquisition proceedings to substantiate that he has been in possession of the property from the date of his acquiring the same under the Ex.C2. He submits that the respondent Nos.2 and 3, in whose favour the award has been apportioned, except marking Ex.C1, which also do not stand in their

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

A.S.No.1150 of 2004

¶28

name, had not marked any other document to substantiate that they are the legal heirs of the person in whose name Ex.C1 stood. They have also not substantiated that they were in possession of the property. The Court below had also failed to note that the award by the acquiring authority had only been made in his favour and hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court.

¶29

I have considered the arguments made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the material records of the case.

¶30

In a claim for compensation of the land acquired by the fourth

¶31

respondent, claimants had made representations and their claims were forwarded to the Reference Court and the Reference Court had held that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were only entitled to receive compensation of the land that was acquired. A reading of the judgment would indicate that the second respondent had examined himself as C.W.1 and had marked Ex.C1, sale deed, which stands in the name of one Lakshmana Padayachi. It is the claim of the second respondent that the property was purchased by the said Lakshmana Padayachi, of whom, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are sons and after his death, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. To substantiate the same, they had not produced any document to

¶32

3/6

¶33

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

¶34

A.S.No.1150 of 2004

¶35

indicate that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Lakshmana Padayachi, nor any revenue records to prove their possession. On the other hand, the appellant, who was the first claimant, had examined himself as C.W.2 and had marked Ex.C2, under which, he had purchased the property and Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, the revenue records namely, the patta, chitta and adangal to substantiate that he had been in possession of the property. The Court below, on the admission made by the appellant herein in his crossexamination that he had not verified the Encumbrance Certificate, had held that the sale by the appellant herein was void as there was a prior sale in respect of the property that had been acquired, in favour of the predecessor in interest of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. In this context, it is seen that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had firstly not substantiated that they are the legal heirs of the said Lakshmana Padayachi. On the other hand, the appellant had substantiated that after the purchase in the year 1994 under Ex.C2, he had been in the possession of the property.

¶36

For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment, dated 10.02.2004 passed in L.A.O.P.No.291 of 2002 by the learned Sub-Judge, Viruthachalam, Cuddalore district, stands set aside and this Appeal Suit stands allowed and as a sequel, the appellant is entitled to receive the compensation that had

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

A.S.No.1150 of 2004

¶40

been fixed for the acquisition of the land. There shall be no order as to

¶41

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶42

06.04.2026