Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R. Swaminathan, J
Chandrasekaran – Appellant
Versus
Government of India – Respondent
W.M.P. No. 21317 of 2026|W.P. No. 19964 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C. Prabakaran
For the Respondents: M. Sathyan, B. Vijay, M. Murali

State authorities must ensure that a landowner’s objections are duly received and considered in accordance with the statutory requirements prescribed under the land acquisition laws.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to restrain the respondents from acquiring his land for the Chennai Metro Rail project without considering his representation. The petitioner expressed apprehension regarding the process and sought immediate relief. Before the Court, the core issue was the petitioner's apprehension regarding the land acquisition process under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. The Court observed that the statutory notification under Section 3(2) of the Act had not yet been issued, and the respondents assured that any future objections submitted by the petitioner would be duly considered during the acquisition proceedings as per law, establishing the ratio that due process of law must be followed in land acquisitions. The writ petition was disposed of by the Court, recording the submission of the respondents.

Table of Content
1. the court ensures administrative compliance with statutory objection procedures. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

For Petitioner :: Mr.C. Prabakaran For Respondents :: Mr.M. Sathyan for R1 Mr.B. Vijay for R2 Mr.M. Murali, Govt. Advocate for R3 to R5 O R D E R The petitioner apprehends that his land may be acquired for Metro Rail Project without taking note of his objections.

2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that notification under Section 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997 is yet to be issued and as and when the same is issued, the petitioner’s objections will be duly taken note of.

3. Recording the aforesaid submission, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASG.R. Swaminathan, JChandrasekaran – AppellantVersusGovernment of India – RespondentW.M.P. No. 21317 of 2026|W.P. No. 19964 of 2026

State authorities must ensure that a landowner’s objections are duly received and considered in accordance with the statutory requirements prescribed under the land acquisition laws.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R. Swaminathan, J
Chandrasekaran – Appellant
Versus
Government of India – Respondent
W.M.P. No. 21317 of 2026|W.P. No. 19964 of 2026