HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 40008 of 2024 K.S.Adhikesavalu ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The District Collector, Chengalpet District, Chengalpet Town, Chengalpet District. 2. The District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram Town, Kancheepuram District. 3. The Tahsildar,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 40008 of 2024
K.S.Adhikesavalu
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The District Collector,
Chengalpet District, Chengalpet Town, Chengalpet District.
2. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram Town, Kancheepuram District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madhurandhagam Range, Kancheepuram District.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the order passed by the first respondent dated 24.04.2024 passed in RC No.57701 of 2015 (DM) and quash the same, consequentially to direct the first and second respondents to pay the sale consideration as per the prevailing present market value of the writ petition schedule mentioned property under the four registered sale deeds dated 29.08.2013 bearing document Nos.3374/2013, 3375/2013, 4337/2013 and 4338/2013 SRO, Cheyyur in favour of the Government of Tamil Nadu failing which to cancel the above four registered Sale Deeds and restore vacant possession of writ petition schedule mentioned property to the family of the petitioner.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Shreedhar
For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Ramanlal
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Mr.C.Gauthamaraj
Government Advocate for R1 to R4
ORDER
Challenge was made against the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 24.04.2022. This order was passed consequent to the order passed by this Court dated 12.09.2023. The petitioner filed a writ petition in
W.P.No.17691 of 2015 for the following relief: page 230
“calling for the records of the orders passed by the first respondent dated 18.08.2014 passed in Na.Ka.57701/2005 T~sunami and quash the same, consequentially to direct the first and second respondents to pay the sale consideration as per the prevailing present market value of the writ petition schedule mentioned property under the four registered Sale Deeds dated 29.08.2013 bearing Document Nos.3374/2013, 3375/2013, 4337/2013 and 4338/2013 SRO, Cheyyur in favour of the Government of Tamil Nadu failing which to cancel the above four registered Sale Deeds and restore vacant possession of the writ petition schedule mentioned property to the family of the petitioner.”
2. In the said writ petition, after hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents, on 12.09.2023, this
Court passed the following order: 3 to 7
“3. The victims occupied the constructed thatched houses and residing there for long years. Therefore, evicting them, at this length of time, will be harsh decision and their livelihood will be seriously affected. Instead adequate compensation may be settled in favour of the writ petitioner by following the procedures.
4. The petitioner, admittedly, had executed the Sale Deed in favour of the State. Thus resumption of land does not arise at all. The High Court cannot determine compensation in such nature of cases and the District Collector or the Committee constituted by the Government for determining compensation and to take decision under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of the year 2013. The petitioner is entitled for the market value of the property along with interest and other benefits as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act.
5. Though the land was not acquired under the provisions of the New Act, the extraordinary circumstances prevailing warrant that the compensation is to be determined taking note of the market value of the property along with interest and other benefits if any.
6. In view of the facts established, the fourth respondent~District Collector, Chengalpattu is directed to conduct an enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner and determine the compensation in commensuration with the market value of the property and settle the same, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The fourth respondent~District Collector, if necessary, may get the assistance of the Committee or any Expert Body for the purpose of determining compensation.”
3. By referring the above order, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this court has directed the respondents to determine the compensation in commensurate to market value of the properties and settle the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the same was not complied. Therefore, the petitioner filed a contempt petition in Cont.P.No.2412 of 2024. In the contempt petition, on
23.08.2024, this Court passed the following order: 226
“The contempt petition on hand has been filed praying to punish the respondents for willfully disobeying the order passed in W.P.No. 17691 of 2015, dated 12.09.2023.
2. This Court passed the following orders in W.P.No. 17691 of 2015, on 12.09.2023 :~
“6. In view of the facts established, the fourth respondent~District Collector, Chengalpattu is directed to conduct an enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner and determine the compensation in commensuration with the market value of the property and settle the same, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The fourth respondent~District Collector, if necessary, may get the assistance of the Committee or any Expert Body for the purpose of determining compensation.
8. In view of the bifurcations of District, the District Collector, Chengalpattu has been sue motu impleaded as the fourth respondent in the present writ petition, who in turn is directed to execute the order.
9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in
Paragraph No.6 of the writ order, the District Collector, Chengalpattu, has conducted a detailed enquiry by affording opportunity to the parties. Not satisfied with the said order of the District Collector, dated 24.04.2024, the present contempt petition has been instituted.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by the District Collector, Chengalpattu, is running counter to the directions issued by this Court.
5. However, the Court is of the opinion that directions were issued to the District Collector, Chengalpattu, to conduct an enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner and determine the compensation in commensuration of the market value of the property and settle the same. During the course of enquiry, the District Collector, Chengalpattu, found certain aspects which has been recorded and accordingly, the order was passed. If any grievance exist in respect of the said order, the petitioner has to challenge the same in the manner known to law.
6. However, the respondent has not committed any contempt wilfully and accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed.”
Subsequently, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent.
4. The case of the petitioner is that even though the guideline value of the property was Rs.78,65,000/-, the respondent forced the petitioner to execute sale deed for a sum of Rs.74,360/- on 29.08.2013 by way of coercion, compulsion and threat. In the same way, three more sale deeds were executed, where value was about Rs.30,80,000/- whereas the compensation fixed as Rs.30,800/- and, for the another sale deed guideline value of the property was Rs.18,30,000/-, the compensation was determined as Rs.75,900/-, the 4th sale deed value is Rs.20,45,000/- and sale consideration was fixed about Rs.20,800/-. He would submit that the respondent forced the petitioner as if the petitioner’s son was agreed on behalf of the petitioner to transfer the land for free of cost, even for the meagre sum of Rs.520/- per cent in the year 2005 itself. However, it is stated that the petitioner did not give any consent to his son to sign on his behalf. The learned counsel would submit that in the present case due to Tsunami happened on 26.12.2024, some of the Fishermen communities, the petitioner provided shelter thereafter, they solely constructed a house therein and the respondent decided to settle the properties to the Fishermen community themselves. Therefore, they have forced the petitioner to sell the property of the petitioner now the petitioner sought only the market value of the property as per the G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 20.02.2005. The said GO permitted the respondent to purchase the properties through negotiation to pay 200% of the market value which ever is lesser for the Tsunami affected people. Therefore, even as per the
G.O.Ms.No.75, the petitioner is entitled for 200% of the market value but, the petitioner was forced to sell the land for the meagre value as stated above and executed a sale deed on 29.08.2013. Therefore, necessary complaint was made to the Superintendent of Police on 02.08.2014. Under these circumstances, the above writ petition is filed.
5. This Court also after considering the submissions of the learned counsel passed an order directing the respondent to pay compensation to the petitioner based on the market value of the property. However, since the same was not considered, they have filed a contempt petition and this Court passed an order directing the respondent for determining the market value of the property after conducting an enquiry however, the respondent abruptly rejected the order of this Court in the above writ petition and passed an order and the compensation as per the present market value was not acceptable, since it was an after thought. The Compensation as per rate accepted before the Negotiation Committee, and son of the petitioner has given statement before the Special Tahsildar (Tsunami) on 25.10.2005. She will be was whole hearted by givenhis consent on behalf of his family. Again he had appeared before the District Level Negotiation Committee an 27.06.2006 and gave his consent accepting the compensation of Rs.520/- per cent on behalf of his family members. Therefore, without any option, he filed the present writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for therespondents would submit that in the present case, the petitioner’s property was purchased after the due consent obtained by his son. He referred the letter dated 25.10.2005 wherein, the petitioner’s son given consent and thereafter, the statement of the Pattadhars wherein, the petitioner’s son made a sign and given consent on behalf of the other owners. On 24.06.2006 and thereafter, again on 27.06.2006, another consent was obtained from the petitioner’s son by stating that all the consent affidavit from the son and also the sale deed executed by the petitioner dated 29.08.2013.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General would submit that having been accepted for the compensation of Rs.520/- per cent, now it is not fair on the part of the petitioner to claim an additional compensation, after execution of the sale deed in the year 2013 and the compensation was accordingly, calculated as Rs.75,920/-. even in the year 2016. The same was amount was paid. Otherwise, he would submit that as per the G.O.Ms.No.75, which was received only for the procuring the land for the purpose of putting up the shelter for the Tsunami affected people dated 10.02.2025 whereby, the respondent will have authority to purchase the land by private negotiation by paying to an extent 200% of the market value or the guideline value whichever is lesser so therefore, the respondent would submit that the cheque was handed over to the petitioner and the same was refused. However, the petitioner would submit that no cheque was provided by the respondent and there is no question of refusal.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents and perused the material available on record.
9. In the present case, there is no dispute on the aspect and purchasing the land through private negotiation by virtue of the sale deed dated 29.08.2014, the respondent had entered into the sale by virtue of the powers available and entered into the private negotiation with the petitioner and purchased the land in terms of the powers granted by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 10.02.2005 extracted Clause-IV of the reads as follows:
“4. The Government after careful examination consider that 200% of the market value / guideline value whichever is lower would be a reasonable limit. Accordingly the Government direct that the District Level Negotiation Committee be empowered to purchase lands through private negotiations upto a maximum of 200% of the Market value or guidelines value whichever is lower without any monitory ceiling for the Rehabilitation of the Tsunami affected people. These powers are delegated to the District Level Negotiation Committee as a special case and restricted to direct purchase of land for housing Tsunami victims alone. For all other purposes, the existing delegation of powers ordered in the G.Os first and second read above will continue.”
10. When the Government Order categorically stated the respondent to fixthe 200% of the market value or guidelines value whichever is lower and though Rs.78,65,000/-, Rs.30,80,000/-, Rs.18,30,000/- & Rs.21,45,000/- claimed under the sale deed and the same came to be purchased by paying meagre value of RS.75,000/-, Rs.30,800/-, Rs.78,920/- & Rs.20,380/- respectively. But the reason assigned by the respondent was that even the petitioner’s son was already consented in the year 2006 and he has also given an affidavit to the extend for the sale of the properties on behalf of the petitioner’s father and the petitioners father before the Court, he has categorically denying the consent given by the petitioner’s son. Even in the letter given by the petitioner’s son to the District Collector dated 25.10.2005 shows that he has been maintaining the subject lands including the petitioner’s mother land.
11. If at all any consent pertaining to the land is certified whatever undertaking petitioner’s son have, that will bind on the petitioner’s son alone. So therefore, the consent whatever provided by the respondent is immaterial for the petitioner while determining the compensation. In the present case, the respondent fixed the compensation, determining the purchase price while executing the sale deed on 29.08.2013 by citing reason that the petitioner’s son was agreed to transfer the property in the year 2006 for a sum of Rs.520/- per cent but, the sale deed was executed in the year 2013 only, therefore, fixation of the value at Rs.520/- is not fair however, in the present case, the petitioner executed the sale deed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the sale deed was executed under the compulsion and threat on the part of the respondent and the petitioner’s land was taken over by the respondent and handed over to the Fishermen in the year 2005-2006 itself, since then they have not paid any compensation ultimately, they come forward to purchase the land on 2013 till then, they did not pay anything therefore, the petitioner refused to handover the land for free of cost then ultimately, was forced and to execute the sale deed and the son was given compulsion, consent and executed sale deed dated 29.08.2013 and he has made a complaint on 02.08.2014 with the Superintendent of Police as well as to the District Collector, no order was passed ultimately, he has approached this Court for the purpose of determining of the market value of the property and pay the compensation and this Court also ordered on 12.09.2032 in W.P.No.17692of 2015 to determine the compensation based on the market value however, the same was not complied and contempt petition was filed and contempt petition was also ordered to determine to the petitioner.
12. When this Court categorically passed order to determine the compensation based on the market value, the respondents supposed to have carried out the correction. The petitioner approached the Collector subsequent to the order of this Court to determine compensation based on market value.
However, he has categorically refused to accept the market value stating that it is an after thought. He has further stated that the petitioner’s son has given a statement to give the property whole heartedly based on the consent obtained from the family but, no consent letter was produced before this Court. Merely by providing a consent of one of the family members, it will not bind on all other family members. Further, the way in which the consent was obtained from the petitioner’s son without getting any consent from the rightful owner by the property would show that arbitrarily they have taken a decision and would sufficient to arrive at a conclusion based on the documentary evidence. These are all obtained by coercion, compulsion and forced consent.
13. Under these circumstances, the relevant document filed by the respondents are all not sufficient to prove their claim that the consent was obtained from the son after the parents and the family members agreement. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed without application of mind and no doubt, the submissions made by the petitioner clearly shows that it is sufficient to held that on compulsion only the petitioner executed the sale deed. Therefore, this Court set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to take the market value whatever stated in the sale deed executed on 29.08.2013 and pay 200% of the same along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of execution of the sale deed till date of realisation.
14. This Writ Petition is disposed of with the above terms. No costs.
13-03-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No
KKN
To
1. The District Collector,
Chengalpet District, Chengalpet Town, Chengalpet District.
2. The District Collector,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram Town, Kancheepuram District.
3. The Tahsildar,
Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madhurandhagam Range, Kancheepuram District.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
KKN
WP No. 40008 of 2024
13-03-2026