Dismissed¶25

The Special Tahsildar (La) v. Thiru Muthusamy

Madras HC21 Apr 2026AS/351/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; AS No. 351 of 2010; K.Kumaresh Babu J.; appeal suit dismissed for non-service of notice; Section 54 Land Acquisition Act appeal; enhanced compensation Rs.175/- per cent; L.A.O.P.No.195 of 1987; Subordinate Judge Arani; Special Tahsildar (LA) Ranipet v. Muthusamy; liberty to seek restoration upon serving notice; connected A.S.No.350 of 2010 similarly dismissed; contested matter served on merits requires notice within reasonable time; no costs; merits of enhancement left unadjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the appeal suit with no costs, coupled with liberty to the appellant to seek restoration upon taking necessary steps, within reasonable time, to serve notice on the respondent. ¶25

The Special Tahsildar (La) Vs Thiru Muthusamy — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissal of the appeal suit with no costs, coupled with liberty to the appellant to seek restoration upon taking necessary steps, within reasonable time, to serve notice on the respondent.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the enhancement of compensation to Rs.175/- per cent granted in L.A.O.P.No.195 of 1987 should be set aside via this appeal suit under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (raised by the prayer, but not addressed on merits in this judgment). +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Where a matter was contested and the judgment and decree were passed on merits by the trial court, the appellant is bound to serve notice on the respondent within a reasonable period of time.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Since the appellant remained unable to serve notice on the respondent for about 16 years after notice was ordered in 2010, the appeal suit is dismissed (with no costs), granting liberty to seek restoration if the appellant takes necessary steps, within reasonable time, to serve notice on the respondent.

¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Acquisition — Appeal Suit (AS No. 351 of 2010) under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Ranipet against the 19.09.1991 judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Arani in L.A.O.P.No.195 of 1987, which had enhanced compensation to Rs.175/- per cent. Although notice was ordered in 2010, it remained unserved on the sole respondent for about 16 years even though the petitioner had contested the original petition and the decree was passed on merits. Observing that in a contested matter the appellant is bound to serve notice within a reasonable period, and following the course adopted in the connected A.S.No.350 of 2010, the High Court dismissed the appeal suit without costs, granting liberty to seek restoration if the appellant takes necessary steps within reasonable time to serve notice on the respondent. Merits of the enhancement question were not addressed. Single Judge: K.Kumaresh Babu, J.; decision date as printed: 21-04-2026.

¶1

AS No. 351 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-04-2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶5

AS No. 351 of 2010

¶6

The Special Tahsildar (LA) Ranipet.

¶7

..Appellant(s)

¶8

¶9

Thiru Muthusamy S/o. Addukara Appavu Gounder, Narasingapuram Village.

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Subordinate Judge of Arani in L.A.O.P.No.195 of 1987, dated the 19^th day of September, 1991.

¶12

For Appellant(s): Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate For Respondent(s): Not ready in notice

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

The appeal suit has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.09.1991 in L.A.O.P.No.195 of 1987. The Land Acquisition Original Petition was filed seeking enhanced compensation under the Land Acquisition Act against the order of the appellant herein and the same was ordered enhancing the compensation at Rs.175/- per cent by the learned Subordinate Judge, Arani. Challenging the same, the appeal suit on hand is filed by the appellant.

¶15

__________ Page1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

AS No. 351 of 2010

¶18

Though, the notice was ordered in the year 2010, till today notice has

¶19

not been served to the sole respondent. For the past 16 years, the appellant is unable to serve notice to the respondent despite the fact that the land acquisition original petition was contested by the respondent before the trial court. In contested matter and the judgment and decree was passed on merits by the trial court, the appellant is bound to serve notice within a reasonable period of time. However, for the past 16 years, the appellant is unable to serve notice to the respondent.

¶20

It is to be noted that a connected appeal suit in A.S.No.350 of 2010, for the very same reasons, was dismissed. However, the appellant had been granted liberty to seek restoration, if within a reasonable time, necessary steps to serve the respondent are taken by the appellant.

¶21

Therefore, this Court is also of the view that, if liberty is granted to restore the appeal suit, the appellant would be able to take necessary steps to serve notice on the respondent.

¶22

__________ Page2 of 4

¶23

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

¶24

AS No. 351 of 2010

¶25