##PAGE1##

1 W.A.(MD)NO.1428 OF 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.04.2026

CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

AND THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

W.A.(MD)No.1428 of 2024

1. V.Bharathazhwar

2. Vijayalakshmi

3. Venkataramanujam

4. Dhanalakshmi

5. V.Srinivasan ... Appellants / Petitioners Vs.

1. The Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition,

SIPCOT Alagu-5, Iruppur, Sattur,

Virudhunagar District.

2. The District Collector, Virudhunagar District.

3. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries Department,

Fort St.George, Chennai-1.

4. Special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition) SIPCOT,

Virudhunagar.

1/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2026 06:47:16 pm )

2 W.A.(MD)NO.1428 OF 2024

5. State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd (SIPCOT),

Rep. by its Managing Director, 19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by this Court in

W.P.No.2476 of 2021 on the file of this Court.

For Appellant : Mr.G.Ravisankar For Respondents : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan,

Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.M.Gangatharan, Government Advocate for R-5.

Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Additional Government Pleader

for R-1 to R-4.

* * *

JUDGMENT

(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the

learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

2.The appellants herein filed WP(MD)No.2476 of 2021

challenging the notification issued by the fourth respondent herein under Section 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial

2/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2026 06:47:16 pm )

3 W.A.(MD)NO.1428 OF 2024

Purposes Act, 1997. The core contention of the appellants was that the said notification was in the name of Thiru.Venkidasamy. Venkidasamy, the father of the appellants had passed away way back on 25.10.1985. According to him, the notification in the name of a dead person is nullity. The learned Single Judge declined to uphold this contention and dismissed the writ petition vide order dated

07.12.2023. Challenging the same, this writ appeal has been filed.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners

reiterated all the contentions set out in the grounds of appeal and called upon this Court to allow the writ appeal and set aside not only the notification impugned in the writ petition but also the order of

the learned single Judge and grant relief as prayed for.

4.Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the respondents submitted that the authorities are not obliged to conduct a roving enquiry and find out the actual land owner. Even though admittedly the land in question stood in the name of Venkidasamy and he might have passed away in the year 1985, his legal heirs did not get the revenue records mutated in their

3/10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/05/2026 06:47:16 pm )

4 W.A.(MD)NO.1428 OF 2024

favour. Since the patta reflected the name of Venkidasamy, the notification was issued in his name and the authorities cannot be blamed for the same. Even though the acquisition notification is in the name of a dead person, it need not necessarily be a nullity. The learned Additional Advocate General relied on the decision reported in 2006 (4) CTC 757 (Gopalakrishnan G.S. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu). In support of his contention that the notice needs to be issued in the name of the patta holder alone, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 5 SCC 365 (Ahuja Industries Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka). He also raised a technical point that the appellants have questioned only Section 3(2) notification and failed to challenge Section 3(1) notification. He also stated that the award was passed on 05.03.2021. The writ petition was filed subsequent to the passing of the award and hence, it is barred by la