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) 25768

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
P.Palaniyappan – Appellant
Versus
The Managing Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board – Respondent
W.M.P.No.12197 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.C.Prakasam
For the Respondents: Mr.J.Pachiyappan, Standing Counsel for TNHB (For R1 & R4), Mr.D.Ravichander Special Government Pleader (For R2 & R3)

Court directs consideration of Section 28A compensation claim despite limitation objection, without prejudice.

Headnote:The petitioners seek enhanced compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for land acquired in 1999, following a First Appeal judgment in A.S. No.965 of 2004 dated 15.04.2010 awarding higher compensation. They submitted a representation on 17.09.2025 after recently becoming aware of the judgment. The court finds no prejudice to respondents in considering the claim on merits. The key issue is whether the representation is barred by the three-month limitation under Section 28A. Respondents contend it is time-barred; petitioners dispute based on recent awareness. The court refrains from opining on merits but directs consideration. Writ petition disposed directing the 2nd respondent to pass final orders on merits within eight weeks; no costs.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks enhanced compensation under section 28a. (Para 2 , 3)
2. dispute over three-month limitation period. (Para 4 , 5)
3. direct consideration of representation on merits within eight weeks. (Para 7)

ORDER

W.M.P.No.11199 of 2026 filed seeking permission to the petitioners to join together and file a single writ petition is ordered on payment of separate court fee.

2.This Writ Petition has been filed seeking for enhancement of compensation as per the provisions of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

3.The petitioners claims that by virtue of the First Appeal judgment rendered on 15.04.2010 in A.S.No.965 of 2004, the petitioners are entitled for enhanced compensation to the lands acquired from the petitioners, which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition in the year 1999. The petitioners have given a representation to the respondents on 17.09.2025, as per the provisions of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the aforesaid purpose. Since the same was not considered, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition.

4.Mr.J.Pachiyappan, learned Standing Counsel for TNHB, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 & 4 and Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 2 & 3. At the outset, he would submit that the claim of the petitioners is hopelessly barred by limitation. He would further submit that since any application seeking for enhancement of compensation as per the provisions of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has to be submitted within a period of three months from the date of the award, the representation of the petitioners dated 17.09.2025 is hopelessly barred by limitation.

5.The same is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, who would submit that only recently the petitioners became aware of the First Appeal judgment dated 15.04.2010 passed in A.S.No.965 of 2004. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of their respective contentions.

6.No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioners’

representation as stated supra is considered on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

7.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the 2nd respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioners’ representation dated 17.09.2025, seeking for enhancement of compensation in terms of the First Appeal judgment dated 15.04.2010 passed in A.S.No.965 of 2004 as per the provisions of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top