Assistant Engineer II Vs S P Spinning Mills Private Limited

For Appellants : Mr.Arun Kumar, D.R. For Respondents : Ms.K.Priya, for the first respondent Mrs.E.Ranganayaki, Additional Government Pleader, for respondents 2 and 3

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶32

This writ appeal, filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, assails the order dated 13.11.2025 in WP No.2177 of 2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition directing the third appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings against the second appellant in respect of the impugned order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the second appellant and to decide the first respondent’s entitlement to compensation, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The third appellant herein was further directed to initiate appropriate action against the officer who passed the impugned order, after affording an opportunity of hearing and pass necessary orders.

¶33

Page 2 of 6

¶34

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

¶35

WA No.651 of 2026

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the

¶37

direction to initiate appropriate action against the officer concerned is totally misconceived since the calculation was made strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Agriculture Department, which was available on the records, for fixing compensation. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the appellants are not aggrieved by the direction to re-work the compensation but are aggrieved only by observations made in the impugned order to initiate appropriate action against the second appellant. Learned counsel for the appellants restricts his prayer to this extent only.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that as

¶39

per G.O.Ms.No.86, Energy (A1) Department, dated 30.10.2019, the maximum compensation for yielding coconut trees may be fixed not more than Rs.36,450/- per tree. However, the learned Single Judge, without correctly coming to the conclusion with regard to the age of the tree, directed the appellants to make maximum payment per tree.

¶40

Learned counsel for the first respondent has no objection if the writ appeal is disposed of expunging the directions to initiate

¶41

Page 3 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

WA No.651 of 2026

¶44

proceedings and to reconsider compensation in accordance with the provisions.

¶45

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, we find that the learned Single Judge, while relegating the appellants to reconsider the compensation, could not have arrived at a finding that the first respondent was eligible for maximum compensation, and ought to have left it open for the authorities to reconsider the fixation of compensation in accordance with law. Since the compensation was calculated as per the existing guidelines and G.O.Ms.No.86, Energy (A1) Department, dated 30.10.2019, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to direct initiation of appropriate action against the officer who passed the impugned order.

¶46

We find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.11.2025 in WP No.2177 of 2024 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the second appellant to reconsider the award of compensation, on merits, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the first respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of

¶47

Page 4 of 6

¶48

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

¶49

WA No.651 of 2026

¶50

six weeks from today, and pass a reasoned and speaking order.

¶51