Madras HC Orders Probe Into ₹1 Cr Land Compensation Paid to Boney Kapoor and Daughters

Chennai, India – The Madras High Court has intervened in a burgeoning controversy surrounding a substantial compensation payout by the Tamil Nadu State Highways Department. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy has directed the department to launch an inquiry into allegations that a sum of ₹1,00,87,183 was wrongfully disbursed to film producer Boney Kapoor and his daughters, Janhvi and Kushi Kapoor, for land they allegedly do not own.

The court's order, delivered in the case of MC Sivakami v. The District Collector and Others , mandates that the authorities must consider and dispose of a representation made by the petitioner within a strict four-week deadline. This directive places the onus squarely on the State Highways Department to investigate the due diligence process that led to the significant payment for land acquired for a public infrastructure project.

The Core of the Dispute: Allegations of Fraudulent Title

The case originates from a writ petition filed by MC Sivakami, a Chennai resident who claims to be a legal heir to the rightful owners of the property in question. The land, situated along the East Coast Road (ECR), was acquired by the State for a road-widening project stretching from Thiruvanmiyur to Akkarai.

According to Sivakami's petition, the State’s compensation was disbursed based on a flawed premise of ownership. She contends that the Kapoor family, who are the legal heirs of the late actress Sridevi, had no legitimate title to the land for which they received public funds.

The petitioner traces the property's lineage back to her grandfather, who she claims purchased a vast 266-acre tract in the area in 1943. A portion of this land, 7.78 acres, was later settled in favour of the legal heirs of her grandfather's eldest daughter. The timeline of transactions presented to the court is critical to understanding the petitioner's claim:

• 1981: The 7.78 acres are sold to a company named M/s. Industrial Gas and General Supplies, which subsequently obtained a patta (a government-issued land ownership deed), solidifying its legal ownership.
• 1988: In a move the petitioner describes as fraudulent, the legal heirs of the grandfather's eldest daughter, who allegedly only retained a right to 0.28 acres, purportedly sold 4.18 acres to Sridevi, her sister, and her mother through four separate sale deeds.

Sivakami’s counsel argued that this 1988 transaction was void ab initio , as one cannot sell a title one does not possess. The petition further highlighted that despite the alleged purchase, Sridevi was unable to secure a patta for the land for decades, only managing to do so in 2023. The petitioner also alleged that Sridevi's family had encroached upon an additional 5 acres of adjacent land.

Allegations of Official Misconduct and State Inaction

A central pillar of the petitioner's case is the alleged complicity or gross negligence of government officials. The petition asserts that the land acquired by the State Highways Department includes property that is part of the Hindu undivided share of her grandfather's estate, making her and other legal heirs the rightful claimants.

The petitioner claimed that even after being aware of the facts, the government officials "misused and abused their official position to cause wrongful loss to the state exchequer and wrongful gain to the respondents, who were not eligible for compensation for a property that did not belong to them."

Frustrated by the lack of official response, Sivakami submitted a formal representation to the State Highways Department, detailing the alleged fraud and providing a statement. However, when no inquiry was initiated, she was compelled to seek judicial intervention by filing a writ petition before the Madras High Court.

The High Court's Directive and Its Legal Implications

Justice Krishnan Ramasamy's order is procedurally significant. By issuing a direction to "consider the representation and dispose of the same," the court is essentially invoking its writ jurisdiction to compel a public authority to perform its statutory duty. The court has not yet adjudicated on the merits of the fraud or title claims. Instead, it has ensured that the petitioner's grievance is not ignored by the executive branch.

The four-week timeline imposed by the court is crucial, as it prevents bureaucratic delay and forces the State Highways Department to confront the serious allegations raised. The department will now be required to conduct an inquiry, which would likely involve:

• Title Verification: A thorough re-examination of the land records, sale deeds, and the chain of title leading up to the 1988 transaction with Sridevi.
• Review of Acquisition Proceedings: An internal audit of the procedures followed by the land acquisition officers, including the preliminary enquiries and due diligence conducted before disbursing the compensation.
• Hearing the Parties: Providing an opportunity for both the petitioner, MC Sivakami, and the respondents, including the Kapoors, to present their respective cases and evidence of ownership.

The outcome of this departmental inquiry could have several significant consequences. If the allegations are found to be credible, the State could initiate proceedings to recover the compensation amount from the Kapoor family. Furthermore, it could open the door to potential disciplinary or criminal action against the officials who approved the payment, should evidence of misconduct or collusion emerge.

For legal practitioners, this case serves as a potent reminder of the complexities inherent in land acquisition and property law, especially concerning ancestral properties with convoluted ownership histories. It underscores the critical importance of meticulous title searches and the potential for historical transactions, allegedly fraudulent, to unravel even decades later, creating significant legal and financial repercussions for all parties involved. The High Court's decisive action ensures that the wheels of administrative accountability are set in motion, with the legal community watching closely to see how the State untangles this complex web of claims.

Case Title: MC Sivakami v. The District Collector and Others

Case No: WP 36502 of 2025