R.N. Chandrasekara Reddy v. M.K. Balasubramaniam

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard.

¶2The appeal is directed against the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Writ Court, whereby a direction has been issued for making reference of the matter to the Civil Court for apportionment of the compensation.

¶3Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant assails the order on the sole ground that he was a necessary party and without impleading him, the writ petition was not maintainable at all. He would submit that the land stands recorded in his name and according to him, he had purchased the land from the writ petitioner/vendor. He has a substantial defence in opposing the writ petition that a vendor could not maintain the writ petition seeking reference to the Civil Court for apportionment of compensation.

¶4Learned counsel for the State submits that as directed by the Court, the respondents have drawn proceedings and compensation amount has been deposited with the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur, on 29.08.2025.

¶5Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent would argue that the writ petition was filed, as, according to the writ petitioner, he continues to be the owner and title holder of the property and his Power of Attorney holder wrongly executed a deed of sale in favour of the present appellant, which is not binding on him.

¶6We find that it is not in dispute that the lands were recorded in the name of the present appellant, namely, R.N.Chandrasekara Reddy. He claims to have acquired title by way of registered deed of sale executed in his favour. On that basis alone, he was a necessary party in the writ proceedings. We are of the view that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party.

¶7In view of the above, this writ appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the writ petition is restored to its original file in W.P.No.238 of 2025. We suo motu implead the appellant as 5th respondent in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge may proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law.

¶8As a statement has been made by the learned State counsel that the compensation amount has been deposited with the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur, the disbursement of the same would be subject to the order that may be passed by the Writ Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim application stands closed. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ.) (G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.)

11.02.2026 Index : Yes/No : Yes/No sra To

¶1The Special District Revenue Officer, SIPCOT – MANELLORE (Phase-II) No.26, Samarapuri Nagar, Kavarapettai, Keelmudalambedu Post, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District.

¶2The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur.

¶3The Principal District Court, Thiruvallur. THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.

(sra)

11.02.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.02.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN Writ Appeal No.2553 of 2025 and CMP No.20303 of 2025 R.N.Chandrasekara Reddy .. Appellant -vs- 1. M.K.Balasubramaniam 2. The Special District Revenue Officer, SIPCOT – MANELLORE (Phase-II) No.26, Samarapuri Nagar, Kavarapettai, Keelmudalambedu Post, Gummidipoondi Taluk, Thiruvallur District. 3. The District Collector, Thiruvallur District, Thiruvallur. 4. Y.Amarnath Reddy 5. Nandha Reddy .. Respondents Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 09.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.238 of 2025 on the file of this Court. For Appellant : Mr.N.Muralikumaran Senior Counsel for MCGAN Law Firm For Respondents : Mr.R.Krishnaswamy for R-1 : Mr.E.Vijay Anand Addl. Govt. Pleader for RR 2 and 3 * * *