Disposed

K.Saraswathy v. Pavankumar G Giriyappanavar

Madras HC10 Jul 2026CONT P/4193/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition, the High Court of Judicature at Madras directed the District Collector to address the petitioner's objections concerning a compound wall and sand cleaning related to land acquisition, noting land registration and compensation were already completed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to deal with the objections raised in Clause (ii) and Clause (iii) of para 6 of the compliance report and take a decision in accordance with law.

K.Saraswathy Vs Pavankumar G Giriyappanavar — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

1 CONT P No. 4193 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

CONT P No. 4193 of 2025

¶7

K.Saraswathy W/o.Late.Krishnasamy

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

Pavankumar G Giriyappanavar The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER

¶13

Contempt petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1974, to punish the respondent for disobeying the final order dated 18.07.2025 passed by this Court in Cont.P.1938 of 2025 in W.P.No.7629 of 2025.

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.G.Krishnakumar

¶15

For Respondent(s) : Mrs. Inthu Karunakaran

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This contempt petition has been filed to punish the respondent for

¶18

disobedience of this Court Order dated 18.07.2025 in Cont.P.1938 of 2025 in

¶19

W.P.No.7629 of 2025.

¶20

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

¶21

2 CONT P No. 4193 of 2025

¶22

2.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the compliance report

¶23

of the respondent was placed before this Court. The relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

¶24

6.The Petitioner did not came to the Collector's Office to give any objections on 20.01.2026. However, the Petitioner had come on 29.01.2026. The Petitioner had accepted for acquisition that the extent of the land in Survey No.329/1 is 1979 sq.m. However, the Petitioner had raised the following objections:

¶25

(i) To give compensation for 600 Areca Nut Trees, 27 Coconut Trees and 10 Teak Trees.

¶26

(ii)To build a compound wall for protecting the remaining portion of her land from the barrage.

¶27

(iii)To clean the excess sand which has been accumulated in the land of the Petitioner.

¶28

7.I further submit that the Respondent hereby undertakes to perform the above two objections (ii) and (iii) made in the aforesaid paragraph.

¶29

In view of the (i) objection raised, the Petitioner has provided the details for the existence of the trees and the same has been placed before the TANGEDCO for due consideration. Based upon such decision, a joint inspection has been conducted on 19.02.2026 by TANGEDCO, Revenue officials and the land owner. After getting report based on TANGEDCO an Errata Publication under Section 3(2) notice has been issued in Dinamalar in tamil and The new Indian Express in English on 22.02.2026.

¶30

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

¶31

3 CONT P No. 4193 of 2025

¶32

I humbly submit that the land and tree value was ordered the District Collector, Combatore Proceedings No.68412/2005/F1 Dated: 13.03.2026. Further the District Level Private Negotiation Committee is conducted and chaired by the District Collector, Combatore on 13.03.2026 for Private Negotiation. Further the land owner was given consent and accepted the land value, will be registered her land to the requisition department on Private Negotiation.

¶33

It is humbly submit that as per Private Negotiation Committee proceedings dated on 13.03.2026, the respondent passed an order on 24.03.2026 directing to the requisition department to register the petitioner's land.

¶34

11.Based on the order, the petitioner's land was registered in the name of Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Limited (TNGEL) on 07.05.2026 vide Document No.5472/2026 in Sub Registrar Office, Mettupalayam. The compensation for the above said land of rs.1,86,48,340/- (rupees one crore eighty six lakhs forty eight thousand three hundred and forty only) was paid to the land owner vide Cheque No.608251, Dated: 06.05.2026 of SBI Erode, GH Road Branch.

¶35

3.It is clear from the above that the petitioner's land has already been registered in the name of Tamil Nadu Green Energy Corporation Limited (TNGECL) on 07.05.2026. What remains is the compensation that has been claimed by the petitioner under Clause (ii) and (iii) which is under consideration. In view of the above, there shall be a direction to the respondent to deal with the objections raised in Clause (ii) and Clause (iii) of para 6 of the compliance report and take a decision in accordance with law and convey the

¶36

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

¶37

4 CONT P No. 4193 of 2025

¶38

same to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶39

4.With the above directions, this contempt petition is closed.

¶40

10-07-2026

¶41

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No kp

¶42

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

¶43

CONT P No. 4193 of 2025

¶44

¶45

¶46

Pavankumar G Giriyappanavar The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.

¶47

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

¶48

CONT P No. 4193 of 2025

¶49

¶50

N.ANAND VENKATESH J.

¶51

¶52

CONT P No. 4193 of 2025

¶53

10-07-2026

¶54

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

K.Saraswathy v. Pavankumar G Giriyappanavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Saraswathy v. Pavankumar G Giriyappanavar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Vs Sengathir Selvan

The Manager, Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Rajamma

R.Maheswari Vs S.Selvaraj

Kaliyamurthy Vs Selvam

V.Prabhu Vs K.Ramesh

S.Sushanth Vs M.Vijayakumar