Janakiammal (Died) Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

¶1

CRP(MD). Nos.856, 1047, 1193, 968 of 2021 and 512 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 17/02/2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

CRP(MD). Nos.856, 1047, 1193, 968 of 2021 and CRP(MD).No.512 of 2024

¶7

N.Jeenath Beevi ... Petitioner in CRP(MD).No.968/21 A.Samsu Aliyar ... Petitioner in CRP(MD).No.1047/21 .. Petitioner in CRP(MD).No.512 /24 Janakiammal (died) Uma Maheswari ... Petitioner in CRP(MD).No.1193/21 ... Petitioner in CRP(MD).No.856/21 Vs

¶8

The Revenue Divisional Officer, (Land Acquisition), Madurai. .. Respondent in all CRPs

¶9

PRAYER :- Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 CPC against the order passed in E.P.No.21, 22, 2, 6 and 23 of 2018 in LAOP.Nos.60, 65, 49, 47 and 64 of 1999 dated 28.01.2020, 25.01.2021, 28.01.2020, 28.01.2021 and 25.01.2021 respectively on the file of the learned 4^th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

¶10

For Petitioner in all CRPs : Mr.P. Packiaraj For Respondent in all CRPs. : Mr.M. Ajmal Khan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr. P. Thambi Durai, Government Advocate

¶11

1/5

¶12

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

¶13

CRP(MD). Nos.856, 1047, 1193, 968 of 2021 and 512 of 2024

¶14

COMMON ORDER

¶15

These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders passed in E.P.No.21, 22, 2, 6 and 23 of 2018 in LAOP.Nos.60, 65, 49, 47 and 64 of 1999 dated 28.01.2020, 25.01.2021, 28.01.2020, 28.01.2021 and 25.01.2021 respectively, on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

¶16

Mr. M. Ajmal Khan, learned Additional Advocate General,

¶17

appearing for the respondent submitted that there is a discrepancy in the calculation with regard to the deposit of the claim amount, which has been admitted by the Government. According to him, the total differential amount payable in all the five Civil Revision Petitions comes to Rs. 47,52,792/-. He further submitted that a proposal has been sent acknowledging the miscalculation, which has to be ratified by the Commissioner of Land Administration, followed by issuance of a Government Order. This process may take some time, and the entire exercise will be completed within a period of four months.

¶18

2/5

¶19

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

¶20

CRP(MD). Nos.856, 1047, 1193, 968 of 2021 and 512 of 2024

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that there is no default on their part and that the calculation mistake has been committed by the respondent, which has also been admitted. Despite the application having been filed in the year 2021, the petitioners have not yet received the differential amount, which is approximately Rs. 47,52,792/-.

¶22

The learned Additional Advocate General assured this Court that the entire exercise will be completed within a period of four months. He further submitted that if the amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the respondent shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the delayed period.

¶23

Recording the said submission, this Court directs that the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24