VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

V.Shanmugavelu, v. Shri. A.Kulothungan, Ias., and 2 Others

DISMISSED
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
5 January 2026
Bench
S.M. Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan
Case no.
CONT P 1052/2025

Follow Madras High CourtFollow S.M. SubramaniamFollow C.Kumarappan

Judgment

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the Deputy Collector Revenue cum Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal vide letter dated 29.02.2024 rejected the claim of the petitioner for payment of 75% additional compensation for invoking urgency provisions in view of sub-Section (5) of Section 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶2The said letter by itself would not constitute contempt of the order of this Court. By order dated 07.08.2018 while disposing of the Writ Appeals, this Court has stated that an award in terms of Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 should be passed. The fact that the urgency provision contained in Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was invoked prior to the enactment of the 2013 Act would not entail the land owners to claim that 75% compensation provided under sub Section (5) of Section 40 of the 2013 Act, in as much as sub-Section (5) makes it very clear that the additional amount of 75% is to be paid only if emergency provisions are invoked under new Act. Therefore, we do not think that the letter dated 29.02.2024 would constitute a contempt.

¶3Mr.R.Natarajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though it is stated that a sum of Rs.71,47,258/- has been deposited in Civil Court, no deposit was made.

¶4That was not the issue raised is the Writ Appeal. In paragraph No.16 of the order, the Bench had only recorded a statement made to the effect that the money has been deposited. Therefore, we do not see any ground for issuing a notice of contempt.

¶5Therefore, the contempt petition is dismissed. This dismissal will not however preclude the petitioner from making any claim in the manner known to law. (S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(C.KUMARAPPAN J.) 05-01-2026 gd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To

1.Shri. A.Kulothungan, IAS., Special Secretary (Revenue), DRDM, Government of Puducherry, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry - 605001.

2.Mr. G.Johnson, Deputy Collector (Revenue) -Cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal.

3.Mr. Shanmuganandam Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Government of Puducherry, Karaikal, Karaikal District - 609602. CONTePeNo.e1052eofe2025 S.M.SUBRAMANIAMeJ. AND C.KUMARAPPANeJ. gd CONTePeNo.e1052eofe 2025 e 05-01-2026 6e/e6

Case details

Parties and counsel

2026:MHC:120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05-01-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1. V.Shanmugavelu, Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Shri. A.Kulothungan, IAS., Special Secretary (Revenue), DRDM, Government of Puducherry, Chief Secretariat, Puducherry - 605001. 2.Mr. G.Johnson, Deputy Collector (Revenue) -Cum- Land Acquisition Officer, Karaikal. 3.Mr. Shanmuganandam Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Government of Puducherry, Karaikal, Karaikal District - 609602. Contemnor(s) PRAYER To punish the respondents for their willful and deliberate disobedience and breach of the order passed by this Court in W.A.No. 36 of 2018 dated 07.08.2018. For Petitioner(s): Mr. R.Natarajan For Contemnor(s): Mr.R.Sreedhar, Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry)

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.