IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN C.M.P.No.23655 of 2025 and W.A.SR No.126345 of 2025

1.The Land Acquisition Officer cum District Collector, Kancheepuram District Collector’s Office, Kancheepuram.

2.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)

Chennai City Water Ways Scheme, Ambattur Taluk Office Building, 1st Floor, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.

3.The Executive Engineer, Kosathalaiyur Basin Division, WRO, Public Works Department, Thiruvallur Division, Thiruvallur Town and District Petitioners/

Appellants Vs Latha Rajinikanth W/o.Rajinikanth No.18, Raghavaveera Avenue, Poes Garden, Chennai-600 086 Respondent PRAYER in C.M.P.No.23655 of 2025 : Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 139 days in filing the appeal.

PRAYER in WA SR No.126345 of 2025 : Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 18.2.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1279 of 2025.

For Petitioners/ Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Appellants: Government Advocate JUDGMENT (Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Heard on application for condonation of delay. The appeal is barred by a delay of 139 days. The cause shown in the application is as below:

“20. I respectfully submit that there occurred a delay of 139 day in filing this writ appeal. The delay is neither wilful nor wanton but due to the administrative exigencies and official procedures. Unless the delay is condoned, the Appellants/Department/Government will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and much financial strain.

On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if the delay is condoned and the Writ appeal is adjudicated on merits in the interests of Justice, equity and fair play.”

2. We find that the objection which is being raised is that the application seeking enhancement was itself delayed.

The learned Single Judge has allowed the petition taking into consideration the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Narendra and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1(2017) 9 SCC 426, which says that even where no applications are filed, in such cases if a particular compensation has been awarded to the other land owners under the same notification, the same should be extended to the person who is claiming compensation at the same rate.

3. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, particularly, the ground which has been raised and also the cause shown, we are not inclined to condone the delay.

4. The application is dismissed. Consequently, WA SR is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

02.02.2026 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No bbr To

1.The Land Acquisition Officer cum District Collector, Kancheepuram District Collector’s Office, Kancheepuram.

2.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)

Chennai City Water Ways Scheme, Ambattur Taluk Office Building, 1st Floor, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.

3.The Executive Engineer, Kosathalaiyur Basin Division, WRO, Public Works Department, Thiruvallur Division, Thiruvallur Town and District THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

bbr C.M.P.No.23655 of 2025 and W.A.SR No.126345 of 2025

02.02.2026