Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
Akthar Begum – Appellant
Versus
The District Revenue Officer (SPL) – Respondent
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. B.Ram Prasath
For the Respondents: Mr. J.K.Saravanan, AGP
No merit found in a writ petition regarding compensation for non-existent land.
Headnote:The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a mandamus for the disbursement of compensation for land acquisition. The petitioner alleges non-payment of compensation for land acquired in Tiruppathur District, yet the respondents assert that no such land exists in the records. The court found no merit in the claim and dismissed the writ petition. The court also permitted the petitioner to file a representation to the authorities regarding her grievance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed for compensation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. no representation made; issue of evidence. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court finds no merit in claim. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. petition dismissed; options for representation. (Para 7) |
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take steps to disburse the compensation amount to the petitioner in respect of the land alleged to have been acquired in Tirupathur District, Vaniyambadi Taluk, Jaffarabad Village, Velathikamani Benda, in Survey Nos.6/3 & 3.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared in the forenoon session, submitted that though the petitioner’s land was acquired, no compensation has been paid so far. When this Court posed a question as to whether any representation was given or compensation has been received by the petitioner, the learned counsel sought a short accommodation and hence, the matter was passed over.
3. When the matter is taken up in the afternoon session, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, by referring to paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, submitted that as per revenue records, there were no survey Nos.6/3 and 3 in existence in the year 1993. It was further submitted that no such land had been acquired by the respondents as alleged by the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned Additional Government Pleading appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on records carefully.
6. The respondents have categorically stated that no such Survey Nos.6/3 and 3 are available in the revenue records and the petitioner has also not produced any material to establish that the said lands were acquired by the respondents or that compensation is payable to her. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus as prayed for and this petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, if the petitioner has any grievance, she is at liberty to make a representation before the concerned authorities along with all the relevant documents. Upon receipt of such representation, the authorities shall consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
