Rahini v. The State of Tamilnadu

O R D E R This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order in Na.Ka.A1/48/2024 dated 13.01.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent.

¶2The petitioner's lands, located in Survey No. 293/1B and measuring an area of Hectare 1.81.50 ares, were acquired by the respondents. This property was originally settled in the petitioner's name by their mother. While determining the compensation the respondents have issued an order stating that the plants and trees standing on the land cannot be considered when determining the compensation value. The said portion is hereunder: vdNt> epynkLg;G gzpfs; Nkw;nfhs;s Kjy;epiy mwptpf;if ntspapl;l gpd;dh; ifaf epyq;fspd; kPJ gw;Ws;sth;fs;/ mf;fiwj;jhuh;fshy; ifaf Gyq;fspy; gaph;fs; kw;Wk; kuq;fs; Gjpajhf rhFgb nra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhy; Nkw;gb gl;baypy; cs;s egh;fspd; Gyq;fspy; jw;NghJ cs;s gaph;fs;> kuq;fs; Mfpatw;wpw;F ,og;gPL njhif toq;fpl ,ayhJ vd Mizaplg;gLfpwJ.

¶3The contention of the petitioner is that the District Collector is not having any power to pass such an order, since the District Collector's has power only to refer the matter to the Competent Civil Court in the format in form No.65 after issuing notice to the petitioner. But the District Collector has passed an order on merits, thereby affecting the petitioner's rights. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶4The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied on a similar order passed by the Court in WP(MD)No.4419 of 2026 dated 18.02.2026, where it has been held as: ''7. As seen above, while making a reference on the basis of the objections raised by any person, it is the duty of the District Collector to inform the concerned authority in writing.

¶8As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no provision enabling the District Collector to revisit his own award on the basis of objections made to the award. The District Collector must follow the procedure laid down under Section 65 of the Act after receiving objections and cannot decide the objections received under Section 64 of the Act.

¶9For the reasons stated above, the impugned order lacks bona fides and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 is hereby set aside and this writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.''

¶5This Court is of the considered opinion that the District Collector cannot review his own order and he has become functus officio. Hence the District Collector is not empowered to pass the impugned order. Further the rights of the petitioner have been affected. Furthermore, this Court concur with the above judgment of the Learned Single Judge. Therefore, the impugned order is hereby set aside.

¶6It is seen that the petitioner has submitted an objection based on the order dated 06.03.2024 passed in WP(MD)No.4957 of 2024 batch, wherein the Court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's objection before passing the award and also held if the petitioner is still dissatisfied with the award, the petitioner may seek a reference under Section 64 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner shall submit a petition before District Collector seeking reference to the competent Civil Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. On such submission the District Collector, Karur is directed to issue Forms 65 to the petitioner and further the District Collector is directed to refer the case to the Principal District Judge, Karur and the same shall be completed with a period of eight weeks therefrom. The petitioner is at liberty to raise the issue before the competent court as per the law.

¶7With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

04.03.2026 (1/2) Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No

msrm To

¶1The Addl.Chief Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶2The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Secretary Water Resources Department Secretariat Chennai – 600 009.

3.The District Collector Collectorate, Karur – 639 001.

¶4The Special District Revenue Officer(Land Acquisition) Collectorate, Karur – 639 001.

5.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Kulithalai Taluk, Karur.

¶6The Additional Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai W.P.(MD)No.5819oofo2026 S.SRIMATHY,oJ msrm Orderomadeoin W.P(MD).No.5819oofo2026 andoWMP(MD).No.4854oofo2026

04.03.2026 (1/2)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY W.P(MD).No.5819 of 2026 and WMP(MD).No.4854 of 2026 Rahini ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Tamilnadu Rep by Addl.Chief Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep by Secretary Water Resources Department Secretariat Chennai – 600 009. 3.The District Collector Collectorate, Karur – 639 001. 4. The Special District Revenue Officer(Land Acquisition) Collectorate, Karur – 639 001. 5.The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Kulithalai Taluk, Karur. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.A1/48/2024 dated 13.01.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.R.Kishore Ram For Mr.S.Venkatesh For Respondents : Mr.S.Shanmugavel Additional Government Pleader (R1 to R5)