Dismissed¶47

N.Lakshmi v. the Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC7 Jul 2026WA/1566/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ appeal dismissed; Clause XV Letters Patent; land acquisition employment claim; land loser family job reservation; Tamil Nadu Electricity Board / TANGEDCO; Mettur Thermal Power Station; compensation 2004; alternate lands 2010 and 2012; employment a concession not absolute right; no vested right to employment; belated claim 18 years unsustainable; Contempt Appeal No.1 of 2020; Division Bench judgment 08.06.2022; WP Nos. 568, 691, 564 of 2023; Madras High Court 2026; S.M. Subramaniam; N. Senthilkumar.

What did the court decide?

Providing employment in land acquisition cases is only a concession and not an absolute right; it cannot be claimed as an absolute right by the land losers' families. ¶42

N.Lakshmi Vs the Principal Secretary to Government — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether members of land losers' families, whose lands were acquired in 2004 with compensation settled and alternate lands granted, can claim employment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TANGEDCO) as a matter of right based on an alleged promise of employment at the time of acquisition. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

Providing employment in land acquisition cases is only a concession and not an absolute right; it cannot be claimed as an absolute right by the land losers' families.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

Since acquisition was made in 2004, compensation settled and alternate lands provided in 2010 and 2012, employment applications made after a lapse of about 18 years from the year of acquisition are unsustainable.

¶46

Key takeaways

As a general practice, in land acquisition cases the Government considers grant of employment on priority basis and based on terms and conditions.obiter¶42
Applications were received from ineligible members of the families and were not considered; even eligible members of the families cannot claim employment as a vested right.ratio¶46
This Court finds no infirmity in the writ order dated 06.03.2024; accordingly the writ appeals are dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petitions closed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeals (Madras High Court; S.M. Subramaniam and N. Senthilkumar JJ.; common judgment dated 07-07-2026) — DISMISSED. Lands of the appellants' family were acquired in 2004 under the Land Acquisition law for establishing the TANGEDCO Thermal Power Plant at Mettur; compensation was settled in 2004 and alternate lands were provided in 2010 and 2012. Claims by sons/daughters/daughters-in-law/grandchildren of land losers for employment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, pressed about 18 years after acquisition, were rejected. Held: (i) providing employment in land acquisition cases is only a concession and not an absolute right, and even eligible family members cannot claim it as a vested right; (ii) employment applications made after a lapse of about 18 years from acquisition are unsustainable; (iii) the learned Single Judge's common order dated 06.03.2024 in WP Nos. 568, 691 and 564 of 2023 suffered no infirmity. Background: an earlier direction to provide employment was set aside by the Division Bench on 08.06.2022 in Contempt Appeal No.1 of 2020. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

¶1

WA Nos. 1794, 1795 and 1566 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 07-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR WA No. 1794, 1795 and 1566 of 2026 AND CMP Nos. 16360, 16364 and 14564 OF 2026

¶8

G.Selvi

¶9

..Appellant in WA 1794 of 2026

¶10

P.Munusamy

¶11

N.Lakshmi

¶12

… Appellant in W.A.1795 of 2026

¶13

.. Appellant in W.A.No.1566 of 2026

¶14

¶15

The Principal Secretary to Government Government of tamil Nadu, Energy Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

¶16

The Chairman, TANGEDCO Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No. 800 Anna Salai, Chennai 2

¶17

The Chief Engineer (Personnel), TANGEDCO Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No. 800 Anna Salai, Chennai 2.

¶18

The Chief Engineer Mettur, Thermal Power Station, TANGEDCO Mettur, Mettur Dam, Salem District 636 406

¶19

..Respondents

¶20

__________ Page1 of 7

¶21

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

¶22

WA Nos. 1794, 1795 and 1566 of 2026

¶23

Prayer in WA No. 1794 of 2026 : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 06.03.2024 passed in WP No. 568 of 2023.

¶24

Prayer in WA No. 1795 of 2026 : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 06.03.2024 passed in WP No. 691 of 2023.

¶25

Prayer in WA No. 1566 of 2026 : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the WP Order dated 06-03-2024 in W.P.No.564 of 2023.

¶26

In all W.As.

¶27

For Appellants : Mr.G.Thyagarajan For Respondents : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.Agam Legal Associates

¶28

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶29

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶30

Under assail is the common order dated 06.03.2024 passed in a batch of writ petitions.

¶31

The facts in nut shell, not controverted between the parties are that the lands belonged to the appellants’ family was acquired for establishing a Thermal Power Plant by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The Government of Tamil Nadu acquired the lands under the Land Acquisition laws and settled compensation to the land owners. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is the

¶32

__________ Page2 of 7

¶33

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

¶34

WA Nos. 1794, 1795 and 1566 of 2026

¶35

requisitioning body. It is not in dispute between the parties that the land owners received compensation in the year 2004 and subsequently in the years 2010 and 2012, alternate lands are provided to the land losers. Not satisfied with the compensation and the alternate land granted to these land losers, applications have been filed seeking employment in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Since the same were not considered, writ petitions came to be instituted. The writ court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the claim is belated and the applicants have not established any right.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellants Mr.Thiagarajan would mainly contend that at the time of acquisition, the authorities have given a promise that they will provide alternate land as well as employment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Thus, they are bound to provide employment to one person from the family of the land losers. The families are waiting for the past about 20 years and the Government has not considered the same. Thus, the writ Court could have considered this aspect.

¶37

Mr.Anand Gopalan appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that, alternate land was promised and it was granted to the land losers. Employment was never part of the scheme implemented for acquiring the lands. About 358 families are land losers, whose lands are

¶38

Page3 of 7

¶39

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

¶40

WA Nos. 1794, 1795 and 1566 of 2026

¶41

acquired in the year 2004. Alternate lands were provided in the year 2010 and 2012. After a lapse of several years, the son / daughter / daughter-inlaw / grandson / granddaughter of the land losers’ family started filing applications seeking employment. The said applications are not considered. Hence, writ petitions came to be instituted and a direction was issued to consider the applications. Thereafter, a contempt petition was filed. The learned Single Judge of this of this Court directed for implementation of the order for providing employment. The Board preferred Contempt Appeal No.1 of 2020 and the Division Bench delivered a judgment on 08.06.2022 allowing the appeal, by setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge.

¶42

Regarding the legal rights of the families of land losers, compensation is a statutory right conferred under the Land Acquisition law. In the present case, compensation had been settled to the land losers. In addition, the Government promised to provide alternate land to the land losers. Accordingly, alternate lands are provided to the land losers in the year 2010 and 2012, which is not disputed. Providing employment is only a concession and is not an absolute right. In such cases where lands are acquired, the Government do consider grant of employment on priority basis and based on the terms and conditions. However, providing employment in such circumstances cannot be claimed as an absolute right.

¶43

Page4 of 7

¶44

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

¶45

WA Nos. 1794, 1795 and 1566 of 2026

¶46

In the present case, acquisition was made in the year 2004, compensation was settled and thereafter alternate lands were provided in the year 2010 and 2012 and thus, the application seeking employment made after a lapse of about 18 years from the year of acquisition is unsustainable. That apart, the applications are received from the ineligible members of the family, which all are not considered. Even in respect of the eligible members of the family, employment cannot be a vested right. In the impugned writ order, the learned Single Judge in Para 14 has settled the principles in consonance with the law established and for all these reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity in the writ order dated 06.03.2024.

¶47