Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Land ... vs Rajini Sasikanth on 28 April, 2026
W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.04.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026
C.M.P.Nos.9346, 8119, 8168, 9253, 9721 &, 9723 of 2026
W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790 & 872 of 2026
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.Special District Revenue Officer,
SIPCOT, Mannellur, Phase-III,
Thiruvallur District.
3.District Collector,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
4.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Industries SIPCOT (LA) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
5.The Chairman and Managing Director,
SIPCOT, No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. .. Appellant(s)
Vs
Rajini Sasikanth,
W/o.S.Sasikanth,
No.15, Palur Kaniappan Street,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. .. Respondent(s)
[in W.A.No.883/2026]
S.Sasikanth,
S/o.E.A.P.Sivaji,
No.15, Palur Kaniappan Street,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. .. Respondent(s)
Page 1 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026
[in W.A.Nos.786, 790 & 872/2026]
PRAYER: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
orders dated 19.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.Nos.3903, 3900, 3934 & 3896 of 2026.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.M.Suresh Kumar
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.D.Ravichander
Special Government Pleader
for A1 to A3
Mr.Abishek Murthy
Standing Counsel for A4 and A5
For Respondent(s) : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.Vikram Veerasamy
W.A.Nos.925 & 926 of 2026
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.Special District Revenue Officer,
SIPCOT, Mannellur, Phase-III,
Thiruvallur District.
3.District Collector,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
4.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Industries SIPCOT (LA) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009. .. Appellant(s)
Vs
1.Bharathy,
W/o.Paul Arvindh Pandian,
No.12/22, 1st Cross Street,
RK Nagar, Mandaveli,
Chennai - 600 028.
Page 2 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026
2.Sujatha,
W/o Late Baskar,
No.12/22, 1st Cross Street,
RK Nagar, Mandaveli,
Chennai - 600 028.
3.Sundari,
W/o Jayakumar,
No.12/22, 1st Cross Street,
RK Nagar, Mandaveli,
Chennai - 600 028.
4.Rajakumari,
W/o Late S.A Fernandez,
No.12/22, 1st Cross Street,
RK Nagar, Mandaveli,
Chennai - 600 028.
5.The Chairman and Managing Director,
SIPCOT, No.19 A,
Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. .. Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
orders dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.Nos.21217 & 21220 of 2025.
For Appellant(s) : Mr.M.Suresh Kumar
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.D.Ravichander
Special Government Pleader
for A1 to A3
Mr.Abishek Murthy
Standing Counsel for A4
For Respondent(s) : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.Vikram Veerasamy for R1 to R4
Mr.Abishek Murthy
Standing Counsel for R5
Page 3 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.) Since the issue involved in all these intra-court appeals is in respect of the awards passed by the 2nd appellant/Special District Revenue Officer in the land acquisition proceedings initiated for establishment of the SIPCOT industrial park, the appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. W.A.No.926 of 2026 and W.A.No.925 of 2026 assail the order dated 17.10.2025 in W.P.No.21220 of 2025 and W.P.No.21217 of 2025, whereby the impugned awards of the 2 nd appellant dated 11.04.2025 and 03.04.2025 in Award Nos.14 of 2025 and 12 of 2025, were set aside and the writ petitioners were allowed to file application for withdrawal of the compensation deposited.
3. W.A.Nos.883 of 2026, 790 of 2026, 786 of 2026 and 872 of 2026 arise out of the orders passed in W.P.Nos.3903 of 2026, 3934 of 2026, 3900 of 2026 and 3896 of 2026 respectively, whereby the writ petitions were also disposed of vide orders dated 19.02.2026 in favour of the writ petitioners, by following the order dated 17.10.2025 passed in Page 4 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 W.P.No.21220 of 2025. The State has preferred the above writ appeals, challenging the separate orders passed by the writ court.
3.1.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their ranking in the lead case in W.A.No.926 of 2026 and the facts of that case are mentioned and narrated hereunder.
4. For easy reference, the details of appeals are set out as under:-
Writ Appeal Writ Petition Award No. & Survey Extent Date Number (Hectares) W.A.No.925 /2026 W.P.No.21217 /2025 12/2025 253/2 2.02.50 3.04.2025 W.A.No.926 /2026 W.P.No.21220 /2025 14/2025 256/4A 1.43.00 11.04.2025 257/1B 1.01.00 257/3 2.02.50 W.A.No.883 /2026 W.P.No.3903 /2026 4/2025 304/1 2.02.50 20.03.2025 W.A.No.790 /2026 W.P.No.3934 /2026 9/2025 299/1 1.99.50 24.04.2025 299/2 1.36.50 W.A.No.786 /2026 W.P.No.3900 /2026 9/2025 300/7 0.91.00 24.04.2025 W.A.No.872 /2026 W.P.No.3896 /2026 4/2025 303/1 1.21.50 20.03.2025 303/2 2.02.00
5. The common and relevant facts to be noted in these appeals are as follows:-
5.1. The Government issued G.O.(Ms.)No.180 Industries, Investment Promotion and Commerce [SIPCOT-LA] Department, dated 12.08.2022, according administrative sanction for acquisition of an extent Page 5 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 of 908.26.70 hectares of patta land and also for alienation of an extent of 76.91.00 hectares of poramboke lands in Manellore, Soorapoondi, Sanaputhur, Madharpakkam and Vaniyamalli Villages in Gummidipoondi Taluk of Tiruvallur District, in favour of the State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu [SIPCOT], for establishment of an industrial park.
5.2. The project covered an extent of 11.46.00 hectares of patta lands in Madharpakkam Village of Gummidipoondi Taluk. The land acquisition proceedings were initiated and the preliminary notification for acquisition of these lands under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997, [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] was issued on 21.08.2023.
5.3. As the lands of the writ petitioners formed part of the proposed acquisition, the 2nd appellant had issued notice in Form-A dated 21.08.2023 as per Section 3(2) of the Act, calling for their objections. The writ petitioners had filed their objections. Pursuant to the enquiry conducted, the objections and remarks of the beneficiary were forwarded to the 1st appellant. By order dated 19.07.2024, the 1 st appellant rejected the objections for land acquisition, which was also communicated to the writ petitioners.Page 6 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 5.4. Notification under Section 3(1) of the Act was approved by the 1st appellant and published in the Tamil Nadu Extraordinary Gazette No.238, Part-VI Section-1 dated 22.07.2024. In view of the notification published, notice under Section 7(2) was issued on 14.08.2024 by the 2nd appellant to all the land owners/writ petitioners calling for private negotiations to determine the compensation. The 2 nd appellant conducted the private negotiations on 20.09.2024, where the land owners/writ petitioners attended and they were informed that a compensation has been fixed at Rs.50 Lakhs per acre for the lands, as per G.O.(Ms.)No.46 dated 15.03.2024, which can be determined.
5.5. As the land owners/writ petitioners were not willing to enter into private negotiations and receive the suggested compensation amount, the matter was referred to the competent authority, for determination of compensation under Section 7(3) of the Act. The notice for enquiry was sent to the writ petitioners on 16.11.2024 and the enquiry was conducted in the office of the 2nd appellant at Taluk Office, Gummidipoondi on 29.11.2024.
5.6. The writ petitioners/land owners participated in the enquiry and did not consent to receive the compensation through private negotiations, but submitted their documents of title, including the sale deeds and patta Page 7 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 for determining fair compensation. The 2 nd appellant, after enquiry, had passed awards as indicated above, fixing compensation in respect of the lands. However, the 2nd appellant had observed that even though the sale deeds and pattas are submitted by the writ petitioners/land owners, since an entry in the Settlement Register of the year 1956 of Madharpakkam Village shows classification of lands as “Government Poramboke- Anadheenam” and no documents are produced to show as to how and when this classification was altered or changed into patta lands, the compensation cannot be paid to the land owners and thereby directed the compensation amount to be deposited in the Civil Court.
5.7. Aggrieved by such decision arrived in the awards passed by the 2nd appellant, the writ petitioners/land owners have preferred individual writ petitions, which were disposed of, setting aside the order and allowing the writ petitioners to withdraw the compensation amount by filing necessary application, which are assailed in these writ appeals.
6.1. Mr.M.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants, argued that the learned single Judge clearly fell in error by setting aside the impugned awards merely relying on the patta, ignoring the settled proposition that patta is not a document of title Page 8 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 and more particularly when the classification of the land in Settlement Register is “Government Poramboke-Anadheenam lands”.
6.2. He further submitted that the revenue records at best may be evidence of possession and the issuance of patta neither creates nor extinguishes title to the land. When the Settlement Register of the year 1956 for these survey numbers of the village contains the classification as “Government Poramboke-Anadheenam”, the 2nd appellant being empowered to verify the documents to ascertain the ownership/interest as per Section 7(7) of the Act, has rightly directed for deposit of the amount in court, as proper documents were not submitted by the land owners evidencing the alteration or change of the classification as patta lands.
6.3. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that, when the onus is on the land owners to submit relevant documents establishing title, the learned single Judge had erroneously shifted the burden and held that the State had failed to discharge their burden to disprove the ownership of the land owners. A land classified in the Settlement Register as “Poramboke-Anadheenam” can only be assigned by the State to individuals as per the Revenue Standing Orders 15(A)(i) and 15(A)(ii) and if at all there had been any such assignment, Page 9 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 which would also be subject to certain restrictions and conditions, then it was upon the land owners to submit all the relevant records evidencing their title to claim compensation. In the absence of the same, the learned single Judge, by placing presumption under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, 1983 and further based on long possession, had passed the impugned orders, which are erroneous and unsustainable.
6.4. The learned Additional Advocate General further contended that merely because the writ petitioners were called for enquiry and notification was issued, the same by itself would not make them eligible to receive compensation, as during that stage, no enquiry in respect of ownership is conducted. The proceedings initially are undertaken as per the available records and only when the stage arrives for fixation of compensation under Section 7(7), the competent authority, received the documents submitted and if from the documents the title of the claimants is established, then the compensation is determined and disbursed.
6.5. However, when the land owners were not able to submit proper documents evidencing their title, particularly change of classification of the lands from Government Poramboke-Anadheenam in the Settlement Register to patta lands, the compensation has rightly been directed to be deposited in the civil court. The writ petitioners will be always at liberty to Page 10 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 establish their title and thereafter make the claim for compensation, but, however, the learned Single Judge has decided the civil rights of the party in the writ petitions, which is beyond the scope, unwarranted and seeks for interference of this Court.
7.1. Per contra, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the land owners/writ petitioners argued that the land owners have submitted documents before the 2 nd appellant enclosing all the parent title deeds right from the year 1970, which have undergone several subsequent transfers based on the registered documents with the Registration Department and the Revenue Authorities had issued patta in favour of the purchasers and, ultimately, based on the last of the sale deeds executed in favour of the writ petitioners/land owners, the Revenue Authorities have also issued pattas, which till date hold good and remain unassailed.
7.2. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the appellants, on recognizing the title of the land owners, have issued notice under Section 3(2) of the Act and when they submitted their objections, the appellants could have summarily rejected the same as per Rule 6(a) of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), if they found that the writ Page 11 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 petitioners have no interest, but however, their objections were considered on merits and only on the ground that the lands are required for forming the industrial park, the objections were overruled. Further, notification under Section 3(1) of the Act has been issued against the writ petitioners/land owners showing the classification of the land as ‘dry land’ and pursuant to the issuance of the notification, the land vested in the State, having been acquired from the respective land owners, subject to payment of compensation.
7.3. It is his further submission that when the appellants have issued notice under Section 7(2) calling upon the writ petitioners for private negotiations, where the compensation amount would have been disbursed if the land owners had agreed for the suggested amount, now the appellants cannot turn around and contend that the title of the writ petitioners is not established in an enquiry conducted under Section 7(3). The very reason stated in the impugned order in the writ petition for declining the payment of award amount is mutually inconsistent, as first it states that the land owners did not agree to receive or enter into private negotiations, but later states that they have not filed documents to show the subsequent alteration or change of classification from the Settlement Register of the year 1956. The 2 nd appellant, while exercising power under Section 7(3) of the Act, cannot go beyond the scope and examine Page 12 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 the title in the absence of any dispute, particularly when the sale deeds and the revenue documents, including the pattas, have been submitted.
7.4. He further submitted that the learned single Judge having threadbare analyzed the issue and finding that the impugned order is arbitrary and hit by Article 300A of the Constitution of India, whereby the right of property of the land owners is artificially sought to be tinkered with, had rightly set aside the impugned orders, thereby allowing the land owners to withdraw the compensation, which needs no interference and sought for dismissal of the writ appeals.
8. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on the rival submissions and the materials available on record.
9. Before adverting to the facts of the case, the relevant provisions under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 and the Rules framed thereunder, are extracted hereunder for easy reference.
10. Section 2(g) and 2(h) of the Act define the term ‘owner’ and ‘person interested’, which read as follows:
Page 13 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 “2(g) "owner" includes any person, entitled to receive the rent of any land or building, whether on his own or on behalf of himself and others or as an agent, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver or guardian or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the land or building were let to a tenant; 2(h) "person interested" in relation to any land includes all persons claiming or entitled to claim, an interest in the amount payable on account of the acquisition of that land under this Act. A person shall be deemed to be interested in land if he is interested in an easement affecting the land.”
11. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act deal with the acquisition of lands for industrial purposes and vesting of the lands acquired with the Government, which read as under:
3. Power to acquire land:
(1). If, at any time in the opinion of the Government, any land is required for any industrial purposes, or for any other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this Act, they may acquire such land by publishing in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette a notice specifying the particular purpose for which such land is required.
(2). Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1), the Government shall, call upon the owner and any other person, who in the opinion of the Government may be interested in such land, to show cause within such time as may be specified in the notice, why the land should not be acquired. The Government shall also cause a public notice to be given in such manner as may be prescribed.Page 14 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 (3). The Government may pass an order under sub-section (1) after hearing and considering the cause, if any, shown by the owner or person interested.
4. Land acquired to vest in Government free from all encumbrances.
(1). When a notice under sub-section (1) of section 3 is published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, the land to which the said notice relates shall, on and from the date of such publication, vest absolutely in Government free from all encumbrances:
Provided that if before actual possession of such land is taken by, or on behalf of, the Government, it appears for Government, that the land is no more required for the purpose of this Act, the Government may, by notice published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, withdraw the land from acquisition. On the publication of such notice, the land shall revest with retrospective effect in the person from whom it was divested on the issue of order under sub-section (1) of section 3, subject to such encumbrances, if any, as may be subsisting at that time:
Provided further that the owner and other persons interested shall be entitled to payment of an amount as determined in accordance with the provisions of section 7 for the damage, if any, suffered by them in consequence of the acquisition proceedings.
(2). Where any land is vested in the Government under sub-section (1), the Government may, by order, direct any person who may be in possession of the land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the Collector or any person duly authorised by him in this behalf within thirty days of the service of the order.Page 15 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 (3). If any person refuses or fails to comply with an order made under sub-section (2), the Collector may take possession of the land, and may, for that purpose, use such force as may be necessary.
12. The right to receive compensation, determination of compensation amount and payment are prescribed under Sections 6, 7 and 10 of the Act, which read as under:
“6. Right to receive amount.- Every owner or person interested in any land acquired under this Act shall be entitled to receive and be paid an amount as hereinafter provided.
7. Determination of amount.- (1) Where any land is acquired by the Government under this Act, the Government shall pay an amount for such acquisition which shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) Where the amount has been determined by agreement between the Government and the person to whom the amount has to be paid, it shall be paid in accordance with such agreement. (3) Where no such agreement can be reached, the Government shall refer the case to the Collector for determination of the amount to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or persons to whom such amount shall be paid:
Provided that no amount exceeding such amount as the Government may, by general order, specify to be paid for such acquisition shall be determined by the Collector without the Page 16 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 previous approval of the Government officer as the Government may appoint in this behalf.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), after the case is referred to the Collector under that sub-section, but before he has finally determined the amount, if the amount is determined by agreement between the Government and the person to whom the amount has to be paid, such amount shall be paid by the Collector in accordance with such agreement. (5) Before finally determining the amount, the Collector shall give an opportunity to every person to whom the amount has to be paid to state his case as to the amount.
(6) In determining the amount, the Collector shall be guided by the provisions contained in sections 23 and 24 and other relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (Central Act I of 1894) subject to modifications that-
(a) in the said section 23, the references to the date of publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and the time of publication of the declaration under section 6 of the said Act shall be construed as references to the date of publication of notice under sub-sections (2) and (1), respectively, of Section 3 of this Act.
(7) For the purpose of determining the amount-
(a) the Collector shall have power to require any person to deliver to him such returns and assessments as he considers necessary;
(b) the Collector shall also have power to require any person known or believed to be interested in the land to deliver to him a statement containing as far as may be practicable, the name of every other person interested in the land as co-owner, Page 17 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, and the nature of such interest, and of the rents and profits, if any, received or receivable on account thereof for three years next preceding the date of the statement.
………… (12) … …
10. Payment of amount.
(1) Where the amount is determined by agreement, the Government shall pay such amount to the person or persons entitled thereto.
(2) Where the amount is determined by the Collector or by any other officer under the provisions of section 7, the Government shall tender payment of the amount determined to the persons entitled thereto according to such determination and shall pay to them unless prevented by someone or more of the contingencies mentioned in sub-section (3).
(3) If the persons entitled to amount according to the decision of the Collector do not consent to receive it, or if there be no person competent to alienate the land or if there be any disputes as to the title to receive the amount, the Government shall deposit the amount so determined in the Court:
Provided that any person admitted to be interested may receive such payment under protest as to the sufficiency of the amount:
Provided further that nothing herein contained shall affect the liability of any person, who may receive the whole or any part of any amount determined under this Chapter, to pay the same to the persons lawfully entitled thereto.” Page 18 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026
13. The manner of hearing objections by the Government is specifically set out under Rule 6 of the Rules, which reads as under:
“6. Hearing of objections by the Government.-
(a) If statement of objections filed by a person who has no interest in the Land, it shall be summarily rejected.
(b) If any objections are received from a person interested in the land, within the time prescribed in rule 3 or 4, the Government shall fix a date for hearing the objections and give notice thereof to the objector or as well as to the Government or company requiring the land. Copies of the objections shall also be forwarded to such department or company and the Department or company may file on or before the date fixed by the Government, a statement by way of answer to the objections and may also depute a representative to attend the enquiry.
(c) On the date fixed for enquiry or any other date to which the enquiry may be adjourned by- the Government, the Government shall hear the objector, or a person authorized by him in this behalf, or his pleader and the representation if any, of the department or company and record any evidence that may be produced by both in support of the objections and in support of the need for acquiring the land.”
14. As per the scheme of the Act, a person interested includes persons claiming or entitled to claim an interest in the amount payable on account of acquisition. The Government shall issue a notice calling upon the owner or any other person interested as per Section 3(2) of the Act Page 19 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 read with Rule 3, to show cause as to why the land should not be acquired. If the objections are received, the manner of proceeding with the objections is set out in Rule 6. While sub Rule (a) of Rule 6 allows the Government to summarily reject the objections filed by the persons who have no interest in the land, sub Rules (b) and (c) of Rule 6 prescribe the manner of conducting the enquiry. The objections received and response of the beneficiary are considered and if the objections are rejected, then a notification under Section 3(1) is published in the Tamil Nadu Government Extraordinary Gazette acquiring the land.
15. Once a notification under Section 3(1) is published, then, as per Section 4(1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances, provided further that the owner or person interested shall be entitled to payment of the amount as determined under Section 7. Further, as per Section 6, every owner or person interested in the land acquired shall be entitled to receive and be paid the amount. The compensation is determined as per Section 7, which provides for private negotiations under Section 7(2) and if not as per Section 7(3).
16. If a private negotiation is reached between the land owner and Government under Section 7(2), the issue is settled once for all and the compensation is to be paid. Whereas, if there is no such agreement, then Page 20 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 the compensation is determined by the Collector or the person authorised by conducting enquiry, after issuing notice and calling upon the land owner or the person interested. The authorised officer under Section 7(7) is vested with the power to receive documents and the statements showing the nature of the interest, based on which an award is passed fixing the compensation. Further, the land owner is entitled to seek reference under Section 8, if they are not satisfied with the compensation fixed in the award.
17. Sub Sections 2 and 3 of Section 10 of the Act mandate the Government to pay the amount determined by agreement or determined by the Collector as per Section 7, unless prevented by some one or any of the contingencies mentioned under 10(3) of the Act. The contingencies mentioned under Section 10(3) are that if the person entitled, does not consent to receive it or there is no person competent to alienate the land available or if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the amount, then the Government shall deposit the amount, so determined in the Court.
18. In the instant cases, the Government intended to acquire an extent of 11.46.00 hectares of patta lands from Madharpakkam Village in Gummidipoondi Taluk, by resorting to the land acquisition proceedings Page 21 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 under the Act, along with several other vast extent of lands for the purpose of establishing an industrial park.
19. A public notice in Form-B as contemplated under Rule 4 was published by the Government on 30.08.2023, for the acquisition of 11.46.00 hectares of patta lands in the newspapers. The Government, by recognizing the writ petitioners as the land owners or persons interested issued notice in Form-A as per Section 3(2) of the Act, calling for the objections from the writ petitioners as to why their lands should not be acquired.
20. The objections were submitted by the writ petitioners on various dates and the objections submitted were considered. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the Government has not summarily rejected the objections under Rule 6(a), holding that the objections are filed by persons who have no interest in the land. Instead the objections submitted by the writ petitioners were dealt with on merits, as per Rule 6(b) and 6(c). The 1st appellant by order dated 19.07.2024, rejected the objections, as the lands were required for forming an industrial park and the same was also communicated to the writ petitioners/land owners. Page 22 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026
21. Pursuant to the rejection of objections under Rule 6, the Government issued notification under Section 3(1) read with Rule 7 for the acquisition of 11.46.00 hectares of patta lands of Madharpakkam Village and published the notification in the Tamil Nadu Extraordinary Gazette No.238, Part-VI Section-1 dated 22.07.2024. Section 3(1) notification was published in the names of the writ petitioners/land owners by showing the type of land (classification) as ‘dry’, along with the details of the structures and trees that are acquired.
22. Consequent to the publication of 3(1) Notification, as per Section 4(1) of the Act, the land along with all the structures absolutely vests with the Government free from all encumbrances, provided the land owners/persons interested shall be entitled to payment of amount as determined under Section 7. Therefore, on issuance of Section 3(1) Notification in the name of the writ petitioners, there is no iota of doubt in respect of the writ petitioners’ ownership of the lands or to say the least, they were persons interested in the land.
23. Since the Government had acquired the lands from the writ petitioners/land owners by issuance of Section 3(1) notification, a notice under Section 7(2) was issued by the 2nd appellant on 14.08.2024 calling upon the land owners/writ petitioners for a private negotiation to arrive at Page 23 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 the compensation. The private negotiation was conducted by the 2 nd appellant on 20.09.2024, where it was suggested by the Government that a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs per acre has been fixed as compensation as per G.O.(Ms.)No.46 dated 15.03.2024 and the amounts were calculated and determined, based on the extent of ownership of lands by the writ petitioners under private negotiation.
24. In case the writ petitioners/land owners had agreed to receive the amount in private negotiation under Section 7(2), the Government would have released the compensation amount immediately without any further deliberations. In fact, Section 10(1) mandates the Government to pay the amount which is agreed under Section 7(2). However, since the writ petitioners were not willing for the suggested compensation and the private negotiation under Section 7(2) failed, the matter was referred to the 2nd appellant for determination of the compensation under Section 7(3) of the Act.
25. For the purpose of determining the compensation under Section 7(3) of the Act, the 2nd appellant had issued notice dated 14.11.2024 under Section 7(5) of the Act to the writ petitioners, for determining the compensation amount. The writ petitioners have participated in the enquiry on 29.11.2024 before the 2 nd appellant and while not consenting Page 24 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 to receive the compensation as per private negotiation fixed, had admittedly submitted all the registered parent title deeds from the year 1970, last registered sale deeds in the name of the writ petitioners and the pattas issued both in their favour and also of their vendors.
26. When once the land owners or the persons interested appear for enquiry and submit the registered sale deeds and pattas evidencing their title, then, it is for the authority to determine the compensation and pass the award. On determination of the compensation amount under Section 7(3), the Government is mandated to tender the payment as per Section 10(2) and only if the person entitled does not consent to receive it or if there be any dispute as to title, the Government shall deposit the amount so determined in Court.
27. The devolution of title of the land owner, as extracted by the writ court in the lead case in W.P.No. 21220 of 2025 assailed in W.A.No.926 of 2026, is usefully extracted hereunder:-
“2.2. Devolution of title to subject properties is set out below:
2.2.1. Devolution of title for Old S.No.256/4, New S.No.256/4A, measuring an extent of 3 acres & 53 cents :Page 25 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026
(i) Lands in Old S.No.256/4, New S.No.256/4A, were originally owned by one Rani and her children, who sold the subject land measuring an extent of 3 acres and 53 cents in S.No.256/4 of Madarpakkam Village to one Vasunthara and Chandrammal vide Sale Deed dated 31.10.1979, registered as Document No.1595 of 1979, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gummudipoondi.
Subsequently the said Vasunthara and Chandrammal sold the subject land to one M.A.Rajendra Prasad vide Sale Deed dated 25.01.1993, registered as Document No.45 of 1993, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gummudipoondi. The said M.A.Rajendra Prasad in turn sold the subject land to one S.A. Fernandez who is late father of petitioners no.1 to 3 and husband of petitioner no.4, from whom the property had devolved upon petitioners. The said property was always patta lands as evident from the UDR which stood in the name of Chandrammal vide Patta No.525. Further, Patta bearing No.525 was issued in the name of M.A.Rajendra Prasad. Subsequently, upon sale, patta was mutated in favor of S.A.Fernandez in respect of subject land measuring an extent of 3.53 Acres vide Patta No.956. At present, patta stands in the name of petitioners vide online patta No.4045.
Page 26 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 2.2.2. Devolution of title for land in S.No.257/3, measuring an extent of 5 acres:
(i) Land in S.No.257/3 was originally owned by one A.B.David who sold the subject land to one M.A.Rajendra Prasad. The said M.A.Rajendra Prasad vide Sale Deed dated 09.09.1996, registered as Document No.1896 of 1996, in the office of the Sub-Registrar Gummadipoondi sold the subject land to one S.A.Fernandez who is late father of petitioners no.1 to 3 and husband of petitioner no.4.
After his demise, the subject lands devolved upon petitioners. The said property have always been patta lands as evident from the UDR patta which originally stood in the name of A.B.David vide Patta No.453. Further, patta in respect of subject land stood in the name of erstwhile owner M.A.Rajendra Prasad vide Patta bearing No.434. After sale to S.A.Fernandez, patta was mutated in his favor vide Patta bearing No.956. Presently, patta stands in the name of petitioners in respect of the subject lands vide Online Patta No.4045 2.2.3. Devolution of Title of land comprised in Old S.No.257/1, New S.No.257/1B- measuring an extent of 2 acres and 50 cents:
(i) Lands in Old S.No.257/1, New S.No.257/1B were originally owned by one Muthusamy Mudaliar who sold the subject land to one to Belsi Karunabai. Then, the said Belsi Karunabai died Page 27 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 intestate on 20.02.1989 leaving the following persons as legal heirs:
(a) T.K.Moses @ Ezhumalai : husband
(b) Sheela Grace : daughter
(c) Grace : daughter
(d) Vimala : daughter
(e) Selvi : daughter
(f) Beulah : daughter
(g) Ruby : daughter
(h) Moodhi : daughter
(ii) Thereafter the legal heirs of Late Belsi Karunabhi, sold the subject lands to one R.Kamala @ Amalorepava Mary vide Sale Deed dated 20.06.1991, registered as Document No.1161 of 1991. The said Kamala @ Amalorepava Mary, died intestate on 31.03.1996, leaving the following persons as legal heirs ;-
(a) M.A.Rajendra Prasad : husband
(b) Jesintha Shyamala : daughter
(c) Irudhyaraj : son
(d) Silviya : daughter
(e) R.Nirmalraj : son
(iii) The aforesaid legal heirs of Late Kamala @Amalorepava Mary sold the subject lands to S.A.Fernandez, who is late father of petitioners no.1 to 3 and husband of petitioner no.4, vide Sale Deed dated 09.09.1996, registered as Document No.1897 of 1996, in the office of the Sub-Registrar Gummudipundi. After his demise, subject lands devolved upon petitioners. Subject property was patta lands from the very inception and the same would be evident from Page 28 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 UDR patta which originally stood in the name of one of Madanlal and Karunabai (Patta No.689). Subsequently, patta was mutated and stood in the name of R.Kamala alias Amalorepava Mary. After sale to S.A.Fernandez, patta was issued in his favor vide Patta bearing No.956. Presently, patta stands in the name of petitioners in respect of the subject lands vide Online Patta No.4045.”
28. As referred to above, the registered title deeds from the year 1970 with all the subsequent transfers of title and the subsequent mutation of patta, including the sale deeds in favour of the writ petitioners, and the pattas issued in favour of the writ petitioners, have been submitted before the 2nd appellant. The award has also been passed in the name of the writ petitioners by determining the compensation amount, but however, after determining the compensation, the 2 nd appellant had by holding that there is a Settlement Register of the year 1956 showing the land classification as “Government Poramboke-
Anadheenam” and no documents for alteration or conversion to patta land were submitted, directed to deposit the amount in the Court.
29. The writ court, by observing that when the burden was on the State to establish as to how the classification of the land stood altered, as they had issued the pattas, the State, being the custodian of the revenue Page 29 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 records, have not come forward by discharging their burden and moreover, registered documents of title spanning to nearly 4 decades along with the pattas issued have been submitted by the land owners and that the State had never challenged the registered sale deeds or the revenue documents until the impugned orders were passed, had set aside the impugned orders by making the following observations:
“23. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order is liable to be set aside inter alia for the following reasons:
i) The impugned order overlooks the following relevant factors viz.,
a) Statutory presumption under Section 4 of Patta Pass Book Act.
b) Statutory presumption under Section 110 of Evidence Act.
c) For 40 years land being treated as patta land.
d) More than 4 sale registered under the registration Act by treating the property as patta land.
e) Conduct of authorities during land acquisition proceedings.
ii) Burden is on the State to disprove the above presumption.
However, no evidence is let in by the State. Having failed to discharge the burden, the State must fail.
iii) The impugned order shifts the burden on the petitioners thereby, misplacing the burden and thus stands vitiated. Page 30 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026
iv) The impugned order suffers from inaction for unduly long period and thus stands vitiated.”
30. It is the vehement contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the patta is not a document of title and further, the writ court ought not to have entered into the arena of deciding civil rights. We are not able to accept the said contention in view of the fact that it is not a claim merely based on patta but, as referred above, the registered title sale deeds of the predecessors from the year 1970, tracing the title till the last sale deed registered in favour of the writ petitioners along with the pattas issued in favour of the predecessors and the present pattas mutated and issued in favour of the writ petitioners have all been admittedly submitted before the authority.
31. Moreover, the Government on recognizing the writ petitioners, either as land owners or person interested had issued notices to them, received objections, considered and rejected their objections on merits and also issued Section 3(1) notification in their names. Further, after acquiring the lands from the writ petitioners, the Government had called the writ petitioners for private negotiations under Section 7(2). It was open to the writ petitioners to have received the suggested compensation under Section 7(2), which issue would have been finalized. However, only Page 31 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 since they resisted receiving the suggested compensation amount under private negotiation, an enquiry under Section 7(3) was conducted, and in such circumstances the argument that the writ court had chosen to decide the civil rights is outrightly rejected.
32. At this juncture, we raised a specific query as to whether the District Collector, Revenue Head of the District, who is a party in the writ petition, had filed any counter disputing the registered sale deeds or pattas issued by them, or had any proceedings ever been initiated for cancellation of the pattas or registered documents. The learned Additional Advocate General fairly submitted that no such counter affidavit was filed and till date the sale deeds in favour of the writ petitioners and their predecessors and also the pattas issued remain unassailed and no proceedings have been initiated even for the cancellation of the pattas on any grounds.
33. At this juncture it is useful to refer to Sections 3(1), 4 and 6 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, which are extracted as under:
3. Issue of patta pass book:
(1) The Tahsildar shall issue a patta pass book to every owner in respect of land owned by him, on an application made by him in this behalf. Any application received under this section shall be Page 32 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 acknowledged by the Tahsildar or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf.
4. Presumption of correctness of entries in the patta, pass book:
The entries in the patta pass book and the certified copy of entries in the patta pass book shall be presumed to be true and correct until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor.
6. Entries in the patta pass book to be prima facie evidence of title:
The entries in the patta pass book issued by the Tahsildar under section 3 shall be prima facie evidence of title of the person in whose name the patta pass book has been issued to the parcels of land entered in the patta pass book, free of any prior encumbrance, unless otherwise specified therein.
34. As such there is a presumption that the patta issued is valid until new entry is lawfully substituted or contrary is proved. Admittedly, when the pattas have been issued by the Tahsildar under the Tamil Nadu Patta Passbook Act, based on the sale deeds registered in favour of the writ petitioners and the writ petitioners have submitted registered sale deeds evidencing the title of their predecessors and also pattas issued in their favour and when the pattas issued have not been cancelled or even any proceedings initiated for cancellation, the learned single Judge had Page 33 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 rightly relied on the presumption under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, in respect of the pattas issued in favour of the writ petitioners.
35. When no one has disputed the title of the writ petitioners and neither the Revenue Department nor any third party has made a claim or objection for payment of compensation to the writ petitioners and particularly when all documents have been submitted by the writ petitioners and the 2nd appellant, in view of the power conferred under Section 7(3), had received these documents and determined the compensation, in the absence of any dispute, the 2 nd appellant had erred in directing deposit of the compensation amount.
36.Admittedly, when the writ petitioners have been recognized as the land owners or the persons interested and all along the entire proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Act in their name and merely because they have rejected the offer in private negotiation under Section 7(2), the rights of the land owners in receiving the compensation cannot be abridged or taken away by the order passed by the 2nd appellant while determining the compensation, directing the compensation to be deposited in the Court by referring to an entry in the Settlement Register of the year 1956.Page 34 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026
37. It is also to be noted that the State has not produced the revenue records prior to the settlement register of the year 1956 relied on in the impugned order. More over, after promulgation of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, land tenures were abolished and settlements were introduced where settlement pattas were issued to the land holders under the aforesaid Act, barring only certain exempted lands. Further, in respect of lands classified as Anadheenam, the State is empowered to grant assignment of the lands to the eligible beneficiaries under the Revenue Board Standing Orders, based on which patta is issued. When, admittedly, patta has been issued by the competent authority under the UDR in the year 1986, the authority competent to cancel the patta, has till date not cancelled the patta and the pattas issued in favour of the vendors and the writ petitioners remain intact.
38. As such, if at all the State had any dispute or claim based on the Settlement Register of the year 1956, when they are the custodian of all the Revenue records and Pattas have been issued by them in favour of the land owners at least 4 decades ago, it is upon the State to produce necessary documents disputing the title, which admittedly has not been done. The registered sale deeds in the name of the vendors and the registered sale deeds of the writ petitioners along with the pattas issued Page 35 of 38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026 in their favour have been recognized and remain unassailed for the past 40 years. When absolutely there was no dispute or any adverse claim raised in respect of the writ petitioners title to the subject properties, the writ petitioners/land owners are entitled to receive the compensation arrived at by the authority.
39. Under such circumstances, the impugned orders in the writ petitions directing for deposit in the civil court holding that there is a dispute in title, definitely tinkers the right to property of the writ petitioners under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ court had rightly interfered in the impugned awards and had allowed the writ petitioners/land owners to file necessary application and withdraw the compensation amount deposited.
40. We see no error or infirmity in the orders of the writ court warranting interference. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim applications are closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J)
28.04.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sri
Page 36 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026
To:
1.The Commissioner of Land Administration,
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
2.Special District Revenue Officer,
SIPCOT, Mannellur, Phase-III,
Thiruvallur District.
3.District Collector,
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District.
4.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Industries SIPCOT (LA) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
5.The Chairman and Managing Director,
SIPCOT, No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.
Page 37 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
sri
W.A.Nos.883, 786, 790, 925, 926 & 872 of 2026
28.04.2026
Page 38 of 38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis