Safiya Malik

The Madras High Court, Single Bench, of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, delivered a judgment on March 18, 2025, addressing multiple writ petitions concerning land acquisition for the Chennai Peripheral Ring Road project. The judgment dealt with the entitlement of petitioners to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the "New Act"). The court stated that the petitioners, who had already received compensation under the 2001 Tamil Nadu Highways Act, were not entitled to additional benefits under the head of rehabilitation and resettlement except in one case where a reassessment was ordered.

The petitions were filed by R. Sivakumar (WP Nos. 34264 of 2022 & 27891 of 2024), C. Venkatesan, C. Srinivasan, and C. Indirani (WP No. 33447 of 2024), and P. Simson (WP No. 33572 of 2024), against the District Collector of Thiruvallur and other authorities involved in the land acquisition process.

Also Read: No offence U/s 138 NI Act on dishonour of cheque alone-Offence kicks in on default of payment within 15 days of demand notice

The case arose from the Government of Tamil Nadu's decision to implement the Northern Port Access Road Project to improve connectivity to Ennore Port. The Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Ltd. (TNRDC) was appointed as the managing associate, and land was acquired under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. The lands in question were acquired under the provisions of the 2001 Act, and notifications under Section 15(1) of the Act were published in the Government of Tamil Nadu Gazette. The compensation for the acquired lands was determined and disbursed to the petitioners, with some petitioners receiving additional amounts under rehabilitation and resettlement.

The petitioners contended that they were entitled to be provided with house sites under the New Act and sought judicial intervention for the determination of enhanced compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement benefits. They argued that the authorities had unilaterally fixed compensation without considering their eligibility under the rehabilitation and resettlement provisions of the New Act. WP No. 27891 of 2024 sought a Writ of Certiorari to quash acquisition orders dated September 4, 2024, and July 25, 2024, on grounds of illegality and procedural lapses.

The respondents argued that the petitioners did not meet the criteria of "displaced families" under the New Act but were only "affected families," a category that does not entitle them to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under Chapter V of the Act. They further stated that appropriate compensation was already paid, and in cases where applicable, additional compensation was provided for rehabilitation and resettlement.

The court examined whether the petitioners were entitled to additional compensation under the head of rehabilitation and resettlement. It considered the definitions provided under Section 3 of the New Act and noted the distinction between "affected families" and "displaced families."

The judgment recorded:

"An affected family does not come within the purview of Section 31 of the New Act. It is only the displaced family, whose rights are independently considered for compensation under the head of rehabilitation and resettlement."

The court reviewed each petitioner's claims individually. It found that R. Sivakumar (WP Nos. 34264 of 2022 & 27891 of 2024) had another house and shop in the same village, and his acquired property was used for both residential and commercial purposes. Compensation of Rs. 3,14,93,782/- was paid to him on February 2, 2022, with an additional sum of Rs. 3,19,560/- disbursed on February 23, 2023. A reference for enhancement of compensation was pending before the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur.

The petitioners in WP No. 33447 of 2024, C. Venkatesan and C. Srinivasan, received compensation on May 12, 2022, and May 21, 2022, respectively. Compensation under the head of rehabilitation and resettlement was also disbursed on March 22, 2023. However, the third petitioner, C. Indirani, was denied additional compensation as she was a family member of another petitioner who had already been compensated.

The court observed that the authorities had followed a structured approach, issuing compensation as per guidelines laid down under the New Act. It noted that for affected families, monetary compensation was an accepted practice in lieu of house sites or relocation benefits.

However, in WP No. 33572 of 2024, the petitioner P. Simson had received compensation under the First Schedule of the New Act but had not been awarded any amount under rehabilitation and resettlement. The court noted that the authorities had failed to assess whether he was entitled to such benefits, which warranted intervention. The judgment directed that a reassessment be conducted in accordance with the guidelines provided under the Act and appropriate compensation be fixed.

The court dismissed WP Nos. 34264 of 2022, 27891 of 2024, and 33447 of 2024, affirming that the petitioners had already received appropriate compensation and were not entitled to additional benefits.

Also Read: “‘CMM has only Administrative Powers’: Delhi High Court Holds Transfer of Cases Between Magistrates Under BNSS ‘Cannot Be Done on Judicial Grounds Without Sessions Court Approval’”

For WP No. 33572 of 2024, the court directed:

"The District Collector, Tiruvallur, shall fix the compensation amount under the head of rehabilitation and resettlement as per the circular and pass a separate award after affording an opportunity to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks."

The Court further stated if the petitioner remains dissatisfied with the compensation determined under the head of rehabilitation and resettlement, it shall be open to him to seek a separate reference, which shall be considered together with L.A.O.P. No. 842 of 2022, presently pending

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. N. Nithianandam

For the State: Mr. P. Sathish, Additional Government Pleader

For CEDC: Mr. L. Jaivenkatesh, Standing Counsel

For TNRDC: Mr. M. Sivavarthanan, Standing Counsel

Case Title: R. Sivakumar & Others vs. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District & Ors.

Case Numbers: WP Nos. 34264 of 2022, 27891, 33447 & 33572 of 2024.

Bench: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.

[Read/Download order]