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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 16760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
Sri Ganapati Sachchidananda Avadhoota Datta Peetham Trust – Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director Chennai Metro Rail Limited – Respondent
W.M.P.No.6629 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.B.Vijay, Standing Counsel for R1, Mr.P.Sathish, Additional Government Pleader for R2 & R3

The court determined that a formal request for reference must be made to challenge the quantum of compensation received under protest.

Headnote:The petitioner, a charitable trust, challenges the award dated 10.09.2025 under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 seeking enhanced compensation. The court determined that the compensation received was under protest and found that a request for enhancement was appropriate. The direction was given to treat the communication dated 04.12.2025 as a request for reference to the court concerned.

Table of Content
1. facts of the case regarding compensation for land acquisition. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments on the challenge of the acquisition award. (Para 3 , 4)
3. final order regarding request for reference. (Para 5)

ORDER

The petitioner is a charitable trust. The lands of the trust were acquired under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Lands for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. Award dated 10.09.2025 is challenged in this writ petition and the petitioner seeks enhanced compensation on par with the compensation received by owners of flats in the same residential apartments complex.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation was received under protest without prejudice to the right to challenge the quantum.

3. Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.B.Vijay, learned standing counsel, accepts notice for the first respondent. Mr.B.Vijay raises a preliminary objection that an acquisition award cannot be challenged in a writ petition. He submits that the recourse available to the petitioner is to make a request for reference for enhanced compensation.

4. The petitioner has communicated to all the respondents that the compensation of Rs.1,24,76,000/- was received under protest and without prejudice to the right to challenge the quantum. This communication may be treated as a request for reference and the second respondent may make the reference to the reference court on such basis.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the second respondent to treat communication dated 04.12.2025 as a request for reference and to make the reference to the court concerned within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Such reference shall be made without going into the question of limitation. All contentions are left open to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.

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