SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 2010

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.JAYACHANDRAN, K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
P.Malairajan - Appellant
Vs.
The Government of Tamilnadu - Respondent
W.P.(MD).Nos.27922, 28131 and 29208 of 2024 and W.M.P(MD) Nos.23681, 24724, 24725 and 24723 of 2024 Decided On : 27-02-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy, Senior Counsel For Mr.S.Lenin Prabu
For the Respondent:Mr.Veera Kathiravan Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.D.Sasikumar Additional Government Pleader, Mr.C.Godwin

The court ruled that completed land acquisitions under prior statutes remain valid and not subject to newer laws’ rehabilitation provisions, confirming the legality of state-enforced evictions post-compensation.

Headnote:(A) The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 - Sections 4(2) and 4(3) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Revival Act 38 of 2019 - Eviction of petitioners from their patta lands without proper rehabilitation and assistance regardless of their Scheduled Caste status - The State Government had previously determined compensation under 2013 Act guidelines yet failed to provide requisite rehabilitative measures - Court found that the petitioners have no legal entitlement remaining post-compensation and ruled that forceful eviction is valid under section 4(3) of the State Act. (Paras 21, 12, 10)

(B) Writ of Mandamus - Procedure and scope - The issuance of a writ does not substitute legislative action nor alter valid acquisition proceedings under existing statutes if such proceedings were concluded prior to the enactment of the new law, notwithstanding claims of insufficiency in rehabilitation policy. (Paras 10, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, comprising a significant number of Scheduled Caste families, contested their eviction from lands acquired for expanding Madurai Airport under the Tamil Nadu Act, 10 of 1999, insisting that the safeguards under the Central Act, 2013 apply. The government had proceeded with acquisition under the 1997 Act, asserting that the 2013 Act had no bearing on completed acquisitions.

Findings of Court:
The land acquisition was lawful, with compensation having been disbursed. The possession of the land required for the airport project continued to be obstructed by petitioners.

Issues: Whether the provisions of the Central Act apply to acquisitions completed before its enactment, and whether evictions in absence of rehabilitation measures can be considered lawful.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed earlier judgments interpreting that past land acquisitions may not be contravened by newer legislative mandates unless explicitly stated otherwise, thus dismissing claims of inadequacy.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. facts around land acquisition. (Para 1 , 2 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. arguments presented by petitioners. (Para 3 , 4)
3. state's defense in response. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's legal reasoning and observations. (Para 8 , 9 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 20)
5. judgment and orders passed by the court. (Para 21 , 22)

ORDER :

[Order of the Court was made by Mr.K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN. J.

WP(MD)No.27922 of 2024 has been filed to issue writ of Mandamus forbearing the official respondents from evicting the petitioners from the dwelling house and properties in the respective patta lands in various survey numbers stated in the prayer, without providing rehabilitation and resettlement assurance.

WP(MD)No.29208 of 2024 has been filed to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare the Provisions under section 4(2) and 4 (3) of The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 to the extent that without confirming to the safeguards provided under section 38 along with Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and the Revival Act 38 of 2019 as null and void and ultravires of the Constitution or in the alternative to harmoniously construct that, the provisions of Section 38 along with Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 have to be read together with The Revival Act 38 of 2019 and Section 4 (2) and 4 (3) of The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 to provide the Rehabilitation and Resettlement before resorting to eviction under section 4 (2) and 4 (3) of the of The Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997

2.Brief facts of both Writ Petitions:

2.1. The writ petitioners in WP(MD)No.27922 of 2024 and WP(MD)No.29208 of 2024 are claimed to be the owners of the land acquired by the government for the expansion of the Madurai Airport in order to upgrade the Airport as International Airport. They have filed the writ petition stating that there are 350 families residing in the Chinna Udaippu Ayyanpappakudi Village, Perungudi Post, Madurai South Taluk. The writ petitioners are among the 300 families residing in the said village and belonging to the scheduled caste community and they are living in the said village in their own patta lands and running business and shops in and around the area and their children are studying in nearby schools and colleges. That being the situation, the respondents namely, State Government Authorities and the Airport Authorities issued the notification in Na.Ka.No.31264/09/B1 dated 09.06.2009 to acquire the land for expansion of Madurai Airport under Section 3 (2) of Tamil Nadu Industrial Purpose Act, 1997 (herein after called Tamil Nadu Act, 10 of 1999 ). Thereafter, some more separate notifications were issued on various dates viz:01.04.2013, 07.07.2017, 07.09.2018, 14.12.2018, 15.04.2019, 29.11.2019, 31.08.2021.

2.2. Finally, process of granting compensation amount to all the land owners except 30 persons was completed in the year 2023. Thereafter, the respondent No.5, namely, Special Tahsildar, Unit No.I, Land Acquisition (Airport Expansion), issued the proceedings dated 22.01.2024, 28.06.2024, 22.10.2024 and forced the villagers to vacate their houses and lands, that too without giving the reasonable compensation and providing proper resettlement and rehabilitation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after called Central Act, 2013). It is further stated in the writ petition that State of Tamil Nadu had brought amendment to the Central Act, 2013, and incorporated the Section 104(A) exempting the applicability of the Central Act, 2013 to the three State Acts including the Tamil Nadu Act, 1997. The same had been challenged and the Division Bench of this Court struck down the same and the same

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top