Dismissed¶47

G.Selvi v. The Principal Secretary to Government

Madras HC7 Jul 2026WA/1794/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court Division Bench (S.M. Subramaniam & N. Senthilkumar JJ., 07-07-2026) dismisses WA Nos. 1794, 1795 and 1566 of 2026: land losers' family members denied TANGEDCO/Tamil Nadu Electricity Board employment sought on strength of alleged acquisition-time promise; lands acquired 2004 for Thermal Power Plant, compensation 2004, alternate lands 2010 and 2012; employment held a concession, not absolute or vested right; ~18-year-delayed applications unsustainable; Contempt Appeal No.1 of 2020 (judgment 08.06.2022) history; Letters Patent Clause XV; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Compensation is a statutory right conferred under the Land Acquisition law; providing employment to land losers' families is only a concession and cannot be claimed as an absolute right. ¶42

G.Selvi Vs The Principal Secretary to Government — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the authorities are bound to provide employment to one person from each land loser's family pursuant to the alleged promise of alternate land and employment given at the time of the 2004 acquisition. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

Compensation is a statutory right conferred under the Land Acquisition law; providing employment to land losers' families is only a concession and cannot be claimed as an absolute right.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

Applications for employment made after a lapse of about 18 years from the year of acquisition (2004), after compensation and alternate lands had been provided, are unsustainable.

¶46

Key takeaways

In land acquisition cases the Government may consider grant of employment on priority basis and based on terms and conditions, but such employment cannot be claimed as an absolute right.obiter¶42
Even in respect of eligible members of the land losers' family, employment cannot be a vested right.ratio¶46
The learned Single Judge, in Para 14 of the impugned writ order, settled the principles in consonance with the law established, and this Court finds no infirmity in the writ order dated 06.03.2024.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeals (Clause XV, Letters Patent) against the common Single Judge order dated 06.03.2024 in WP Nos. 564, 568 and 691 of 2023 — appellants belong to families whose lands were acquired in 2004 for establishing a Thermal Power Plant by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board/TANGEDCO; compensation was paid in 2004 and alternate lands provided in 2010 and 2012 — claim for employment rejected below as belated — Held: compensation is a statutory right under the Land Acquisition law; employment of land losers' family members is only a concession, not an absolute or vested right, even for eligible members; applications made after a lapse of about 18 years from acquisition are unsustainable; an earlier Division Bench judgment dated 08.06.2022 in Contempt Appeal No.1 of 2020 had already set aside the Single Judge's direction to provide employment — no infirmity found in the writ order dated 06.03.2024; writ appeals dismissed with no costs and connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶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