Venkatachalam v. The Principal Secretary to Government

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the common order dated 20.02.2024 passed in a batch of writ petitions.

¶2The facts in nut shell, not controverted between the parties are that the land belonged to the appellant's family was acquired for establishing a Thermal Power Plant by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The Government of Tamil Nadu acquired the lands under the Land Acquisition laws and settled compensation to the land owners. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is the requisitioning body. It is not in dispute between the parties that for the land that was acquired in 2006, the appellant along with others were given compensation and alternate sites were also provided. Not satisfied with the compensation and the alternate land granted, applications have been filed seeking employment in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Since the same were not considered, several writ petitions came to be instituted. The writ court dismissed the appellant's writ petition along with the batch of petitions on the ground that the claim is belated and the appellant has not established any right. Page3 of 6

¶3Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Thiagarajan, would mainly contend that at the time of acquisition, the authorities have given a promise that they will provide alternate land as well as employment in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Thus, they are bound to provide employment to one person from the family of the land losers. The appellant's family and other land owners were waiting for the past about 20 years and the Government has not considered the same. Thus, the writ Court could have considered this aspect.

¶4Mr.Anand Gopalan appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that, alternate land was promised and it was granted to the land losers. Employment was never part of the scheme implemented for acquiring the lands. About 358 families are land losers, whose lands are acquired in the year 2004 and 2006. Alternate lands were provided in the year 2010 and 2012. After a lapse of several years, the son / daughter / daughter-in-law / grandson / granddaughter of the land losers' family started filing applications seeking employment. The said applications were not considered. Hence, writ petitions came to be instituted and a direction was issued to consider the applications. Thereafter, a contempt petition was filed. The learned Single Judge of this Court directed for implementation of the order for providing employment. Aggrieved by the same, the Board preferred Contempt Appeal No.1 of 2020 and the Division Bench delivered a judgment Page4 of 6 on 08.06.2022 allowing the appeal, by setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge.

¶5Regarding the legal rights of the families of land losers, compensation is a statutory right conferred under the Land Acquisition law. In the present case, compensation had been settled to all the land losers including the appellant. In addition, the Government promised to provide alternate land to the land losers. Accordingly, alternate lands are provided to the land losers in the year 2010 and 2012, which is not disputed. Providing employment is only a concession and is not an absolute right. In such cases where lands are acquired, the Government do consider grant of employment on priority basis and based on the terms and conditions. However, providing employment in such circumstances cannot be claimed as an absolute right.

¶6In the present case, acquisition was made in the year 2006, compensation was settled and thereafter alternate land was provided and thus, the application seeking employment made after a lapse of about 8 years from the year of acquisition is unsustainable. That apart, the respondents have stated that the applications were received from the ineligible members of the family, which all were not considered. Even in respect of the eligible members of the family, employment cannot be a vested right. In the impugned writ order, the learned Single Judge in Para 14 has settled the principles in consonance with the law established and for all these reasons, this Court Page5 of 6 does not find any infirmity in the writ order dated 20.02.2024.

¶7Moreover, the learned Single Judge also observed that the land of the petitioner is classified as Mandaveli Poramboke and though he is entitled for compensation and alternative house site, he is not entitled for any employment since his land belongs to Government.

¶8Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 23-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order VSI To

¶1The Principal secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu, Energy Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶2The Chairman,TANGEDCO Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

¶3The Chief Engineer (personnel), TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

¶4The Superintending Enginer (General) Mettur, Thermal Power Project, Mettur, Mettur Dam, Salem District-636 406. WAoNo.o1868oofo2026 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,eJ. AND N.SENTHILKUMAR,eJ. vsi WAeNo.e1868eofe2026 23-07-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 23-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR and C.M.P.No.16832 of 2026 Venkatachalam S/o.Palaniyappan, Puduchinakavur, Karupu Retiyur (po), Mettur Dam- 4. ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. The Principal Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu, Energy Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2. The Chairman,TANGEDCO Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 3. The Chief Engineer (personnel), TANGEDCO, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, No.800, Anna Salai, Chennai-2. 4. The Superintending Engineer (General) Mettur, Thermal Power Project, Mettur, Mettur Dam, Salem District- 636 406. ..Respondent(s) Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 20-02-2024 passed in WP.No.428 of 2023. Page2 of 6 For Appellant(s): Mr.G.Thyagarajan For Respondent(s): Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s. Agam Legal for R2 to R4