Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, C.KUMARAPPAN, JJ
K.Kanagaraj – Appellant
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Adi-Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department – Respondent
W.A(MD)No.2920 of 2025 | W.A(MD)No.2921 of 2025 | W.P.(MD)No.18305 of 2025 | W.P.(MD)No.18929 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.P.Senthil
For the Respondents: Mr.M.Sarangan, Mr.D.Sadiq Raja

Statutory interpretation of re-possession rights under the Land Acquisition Act post-2013 amendments.

Headnote:The present writ appeals arise out of the order made in W.P.(MD)No.18305 of 2025, addressing the legal issue under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 concerning re-possession and compensation benefits post the 2013 Act implementation. The court determined whether the appellant was entitled to claim re-possession or compensation under the aforementioned Act. The critical issue involves the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and the appellant's pending representations regarding re-possession. The court dismissed the writ appeals while granting liberty to challenge the decision regarding land reconveyance, emphasized in the judgment delivered on 19.11.2025.

Table of Content
1. ruling on liberty to challenge administrative orders. (Para 5)

(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

Read this order in continuation of and in conjunction with the order dated 16.10.2025, which reads as follows:

“Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents.

2.The legal question that arises for determination in this case is as to whether the provisions of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 ('Act'), providing for the benefit of re- possession/compensation under Section 48-B of the Act, can be availed by the appellant post the coming into force of the 2013 Act. For this purpose, this appellant cites the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr.R.Jayaraj vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others [W.P.No.17774 of 2020, dated 23.02.2021].

3.In fact, the petitioner has made two representations specifically raising the question of re-possession, which are pending consideration thus far.

4.The petitioner will hence appear before R1 on 23.10.2025 at 11.00 am. The petitioner shall be accompanied with a copy of this order as well as the representations dated 16.03.2022 and 21.06.2022, along with supporting documents. He shall be granted audience, heard and an order passed by the authority, prior to the next date of hearing.

5.List on 19.11.2025 for production of orders. Status quo till then.”

2.The appellant appeared before the authority and orders had also been passed, a copy of which is handed over to us.

3.Vide order in Letter No.1450/LA1/2025, dated 17.11.2025, the Secretary to Government, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare (LA2) Department Secretariat, Secretariat, has negatived the claim of the appellant for reconveyance of 41 cents of land in Survey No.13/1B at Oddanchatram Village, Dindigul District.

4.Hence, the writ appeals are dismissed recording the aforesaid. Liberty is granted to the appellant to challenge order dated 17.11.2025, if so desired. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document