Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

K.Ramalingam Vs the Executive Engineer and Ado — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
K.Ramalingam Vs the Executive Engineer and AdoK.Ramalingam v. the Executive Engineer and Ado

Disposed¶29

K.Ramalingam v. the Executive Engineer and Ado

Madras HC20 Apr 2026WP/5141/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.No.5141 of 2024, Madras High Court, decision dated 20.04.2026; K. Ramalingam v. Executive Engineer & ADO, Villupuram Housing Unit, TNHB and Special Tashildhar, Land Acquisition, Cuddalore; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus against TNHB notice dated 07.02.2024 (L.R.No.VPM/R4/2543/2012) for removal of alleged unauthorized construction at Salamedu Village, Villupuram (Survey No.60/5, 2652 sq.ft); natural justice / opportunity to explain before enforcement; petitioner's claim of lapsed land acquisition under Section 24(2) RFCTLARR Act 2013 raised in prayer; disposed of with liberty to file explanation within three weeks; coram S.M. Subramaniam and K. Surender, JJ.; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with no costs; connected W.M.P.No.5655 of 2024 closed; petitioner granted liberty to submit explanation with documents to the 1st respondent within three weeks, which the competent authorities shall consider and decide finally before any further enforcement action.

Why is it important?

The petitioner was granted liberty to submit his explanation along with documents regarding the allegation of unauthorized construction to the first respondent within three weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; on receipt of such explanation, the authorities competent shall consider it and take a final decision before proceeding further with the enforcement action. ¶27

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with no costs; connected W.M.P.No.5655 of 2024 closed; petitioner granted liberty to submit explanation with documents to the 1st respondent within three weeks, which the competent authorities shall consider and decide finally before any further enforcement action.

Issue for consideration

Whether the notice dated 07.02.2024 directing the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorized construction on or before 28.02.2024, said to have been issued without affording an opportunity to defend, can be enforced without first considering the petitioner's explanation. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner was granted liberty to submit his explanation along with documents regarding the allegation of unauthorized construction to the first respondent within three weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; on receipt of such explanation, the authorities competent shall consider it and take a final decision before proceeding further with the enforcement action.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (S.M. Subramaniam, J., for the Bench of S.M. Subramaniam and K. Surender, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice dated 07.02.2024 (L.R.No.VPM/R4/2543/2012) issued by the Executive Engineer & ADO, Villupuram Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, directing the petitioner to remove an alleged unauthorized construction at Salamedu Village, Villupuram (Survey No.60/5, 2652 sq.ft) on or before 28.02.2024. On the submission that the notice was issued without affording an opportunity to defend, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to submit an explanation with documents within three weeks, directed the competent authorities to consider it and take a final decision before proceeding with enforcement. The petitioner's pleas of pre-acquisition possession and lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act were not expressly adjudicated. No costs; connected W.M.P. closed.

A

W.P.No.5141 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.04.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K.SURENDER

W.P.No.5141 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.5655 of 2024

K.Ramalingam, S/o.Krishnan ...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Executive Engineer & ADO, Villupuram Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, East Pondy Road, Maharajapuram, Villupuram.

2. The Special Tashildhar, Land Acquisition, Housing Development Scheme, Cuddalore. ...Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in his proceedings in L.R.No.VPM/R4/2543/2012 dated 07.02.2024 and quash the same and also forbear the respondents from interfering in the property of the petitioner in Survey No.60/5 measuring an extent of East West 39 ft North South 68 ft totalling 2652 sq.ft situate at Salamedu Village panchayat, Villupuram taluk and district as the land acquisition was lapsed in view of Section 24(2)

1/4

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

W.P.No.5141 of 2024

of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Suresh

For Respondents : Mr.D.Veerasekaran Standing Counsel [TNHB] [R1]

Mr.T.Arun Kumar, Additional Government Pleader [R2]

Order

[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. ]

The notice issued by the Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Villupuram Housing Board vide proceedings dated 07.02.2024 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Housing Board has directed the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction of building on or before 28.02.2024 without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case.

3. In view of the said submission, the petitioner is at liberty to submit his explanation along with documents, if any

2/4

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

W.P.No.5141 of 2024

regarding the allegation of unauthorized construction to the 1^st respondent within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the authorities competent shall consider the same and thereafter take a final decision before proceeding further with the enforcement action.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was in possession even prior to the acquisition made by the Government.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

[S.M.S., J.] [K.S, J.]

20.04.2026

mp

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

3/4

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

W.P.No.5141 of 2024

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND K.SURENDER, J.

mp

To

1. The Executive Engineer & ADO, Villupuram Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, East Pondy Road, Maharajapuram, Villupuram.

2. The Special Tashildhar, Land Acquisition, Housing Development Scheme, Cuddalore.

W.P.No.5141 of 2024

20.04.2026

4/4

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

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the notice dated 07.02.2024 directing the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorized construction on or before 28.02.2024, said to have been issued without affording an opportunity to defend, can be enforced without first considering the petitioner's explanation.medium confidence¶22
The court held
The petitioner was granted liberty to submit his explanation along with documents regarding the allegation of unauthorized construction to the first respondent within three weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; on receipt of such explanation, the authorities competent shall consider it and take a final decision before proceeding further with the enforcement action.ratio¶27
2.
Whether the respondents may interfere with the petitioner's property in Survey No.60/5, Salamedu Village, Villupuram, on the petitioner's claim that the land acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (raised in the prayer; not expressly adjudicated).low confidence¶11

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶11
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Section 24(2)¶11

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Notice vide proceedings L.R.No.VPM/R4/2543/2012 dated 07.02.2024 issued by the Executive Engineer & ADO, Villupuram Housing Unit, TNHB, directing the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorized construction on or before 28.02.2024, challenged as issued without affording an opportunity to defend.¶21
The Executive Engineer & ADO, Villupuram Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board · 07.02.2024

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
K.Ramalingam, S/o.Krishnan¶7
Mr.N.Suresh
respondent
The Executive Engineer & ADO, Villupuram Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board¶9
Mr.D.Veerasekaran
respondent
The Special Tashildhar, Land Acquisition, Housing Development Scheme, Cuddalore¶10
Mr.T.Arun Kumar

Coram

AI extract

S.M.SUBRAMANIAMauthor¶20
K.SURENDERmember¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 20 Apr 2026 · April
Registered: 27 Feb 2024
Case no.: WP/5141/2024
CNR: HCMA010366972024
Topic: Land Acquisition
Bench: S. M. Subramaniam K. Surender
Disposal: DISPOSED OF
Case type: W.P.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from S. M. Subramaniam K. Surender

The Principal Secretary Vs K.N. Kamalnath
17 Apr 2026
Sellamuthu Vs The District Revenue Officer
17 Apr 2026
The Managing Director Vs Shanmugam (Died) Karpagavalli
17 Apr 2026
D.Murugaiyan Vs The District Collector
20 Apr 2026
K.Raja Vs the District Collector
20 Apr 2026
K.Raja Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer
20 Apr 2026

Cite this judgement

K.Ramalingam v. the Executive Engineer and Ado, WP/5141/2024 (MAD), decided on 20 April 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Section 24(2)

View all statutes

Procedural history1

Notice vide proceedings L.R.No.VPM/R4/2543/2012 dated 07.02.2024 issued by the Executive Engineer & ADO, Villupuram Housing Unit, TNHB, directing the petitioner to remove the alleged unauthorized construction on or before 28.02.2024, challenged as issued without affording an opportunity to defend.The Executive Engineer & ADO, Villupuram Housing Unit, Tamil Nadu Housing Board · 07.02.2024

View full history

Bench / Coram

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and K.SURENDER

Parties & counsel