David Koil Pillai vs The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
- Court
- Madras High Court
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 30.09.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 29.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
W.P.(MD).No.21260 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011023482026}
and W.P.(MD).Nos.27405 and 27406 of 2026
and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.15758, 18486, 20736, 20737,
20747 and 20749 of 2026
W.P.(MD) Nos. 21260 of 2026:
David Koil Pillai
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Water Resources Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The District Collector
Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3. The Special District Revenue Officer (Land
Acquisition)
Special District Revenue Office,
River Interlinking Project,
Tirunelveli.
4. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition)
River Interlinking Project (Unit-7),
Tirunelveli.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the
__________
Page 1 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
records relating to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.92, Water Resources (N2)
st
Department, dated 08.11.2022 passed by the 1 respondent and also
rd
impugned order of the 3 respondent in Na.Ka.Na.Ni.E.3/61/2022 dated
15.04.26 and quash all the above impugned orders in respect of land in
Survey Nos.561, 562/1, 562/2, 562/3, 563/1, 563/2 and 564, admeasuring
an extent of 10.18 acres, situated at South Kallidaikurichi Part-2 Village,
Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Baskaran
Senior Counsel
for M/s.N.Vignesh
For Respondent(s): Mr.J.Barathan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mrs.K.Porkodi
Special Government Pleader
W.P.(MD).No.27405 of 2026:
1. Jacintha
2. Karina Koil Pillai
3. Katrina Koil Pillai
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Water Resources Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2. The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
__________
Page 2 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
3. The Special Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition),
Special District Revenue Office,
River Interlinking Project,
Tirunelveli.
4. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
River Interlinking Project (Unit-7),
Tirunelveli.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the
records relating to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.92, Water Resources (N2)
st
Department, dated 08.11.2022 passed by the 1 respondent, the impugned
nd
preliminary notification issued by the 2 respondent in
Na.Ka.No.Na.Ni.E.3/61/2022 dated 18.03.2025, the impugned
declaration notification issued by the 2nd respondent in
Na.Ka.No.Na.Ni.E.3/61/2022 dated 26.11.2025 and also impugned
rd
proceeding of the 3 respondent in Na.Ka.Na. Ni. E.3/61/2022 dated
15.04.2026 and quash all the above impugned orders insofar as they
relate to the petitioners’ lands described in paragraph 8 of the affidavit,
situated at South Kallidaikurichi Part-2 Village, Ambasamudram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Baskaran
Senior Counsel
for M/s.N.Vignesh
For Respondent(s): Mr.J.Barathan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mrs.K.Porkodi
Special Government Pleader
W.P.(MD).No.27406 of 2026:
Indra
__________
Page 3 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Water Resources Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2. The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3. The Special Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition),
Special District Revenue Office,
River Interlinking Project,
Tirunelveli.
4. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
River Interlinking Project (Unit-7),
Tirunelveli.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the
records relating to the impugned G.O.Ms.No.92, Water Resources (N2)
st
Department, dated 08.11.2022 passed by the 1 respondent, the impugned
nd
preliminary notification issued by the 2 respondent in
Na.Ka.No.Na.Ni.E.3/61/2022 dated 18.03.2025, the impugned
nd
declaration notification issued by the 2 respondent in
Na.Ka.No.Na.Ni.E.3/61/2022 dated 26.11.2025 and also impugned
rd
proceeding of the 3 respondent in Na.Ka.Na. Ni. E.3/61/2022 dated
15.04.2026 and quash all the above impugned orders insofar as they
relate to the petitioner’s lands described in paragraph 6 of the affidavit,
situated at South Kallidaikurichi Part-2 Village, Ambasamudram Taluk,
Tirunelveli District.
__________
Page 4 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Baskaran
Senior Counsel
for M/s.N.Vignesh
For Respondent(s): Mr.J.Barathan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mrs.K.Porkodi
Special Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
The Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.21260 of 2026 has been filed
st
challenging the order passed by the 1 respondent granting
Administrative Sanction for acquisition of 87.94.32 hectares of land in
Survey No.534/3C and other survey numbers in Kallidaikurichi Part-2
Village, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District and for
reclassification of the said land. The petitioner also challenges the
rd
subsequent order passed by the 3 respondent rejecting the objections of
the petitioner against the acquisition.
2. The Writ Petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.27406 and 27405 of 2026
have been filed challenging the above mentioned order of the
st nd
1 respondent, the preliminary notification issued by the 2 respondent
under Section 11(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter called as the ‘Right to Fair Compensation Act’ for brevity),
__________
Page 5 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
the final notification under Section 19 of the Right to Fair Compensation
rd
Act and the order passed by the 3 respondent rejecting the objections of
the petitioner against the acquisition.
3. The facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are as follows:-
3.(i) The petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.21260 of 2026 and the
petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.27405 of 2026 are husband and wife. The
petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.27406 of 2026 is a close relative of petitioner
in W.P.(MD).No.21260 of 2026.
3.(ii) It is the case of the petitioners that the subject properties are
owned by them as they purchased it from its original owner Subbaiah
under the registered document as early as 2015. According to them, the
subject properties have been in their possession and enjoyment and the
revenue records were also mutated in their names. It is their further case
that they have been cultivating the subject properties by raising
agricultural crops, fruit-bearing trees etc. The petitioners came across a
paper publication made under Section 19(1) of the Right to Fair
Compensation Act, declaring that the subject land and other adjacent
lands in the above mentioned Village was needed for the purpose of
__________
Page 6 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
construction of Check Dam across River Elumitchaiyaru. As soon as the
petitioners acquired knowledge about the said notification, they
submitted their objections to acquisition to the respondents on
10.01.2026.
3.(iii) It was the specific case of the petitioners that the subject
properties are agricultural lands wherein agricultural operations are
carried out by the petitioners. It was also stated in the objections that
there were uncultivated barren lands available adjacent to the petitioners’
lands and hence, requested the respondents to exclude their lands from
the acquisition proceedings and proceed to acquire the barren lands
rd
instead of petitioners’ lands. The 3 respondent by his impugned
communication dated 15.04.2026 by relying on the impugned
st
Administrative Sanction made by the 1 respondent in G.O.MS.No.92,
Water Resources (N2) Department, dated 08.11.2022, overruled the
objections. Hence, the petitioners were constrained to file these writ
petitions.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed
the impugned orders of the respondents mainly on the following
grounds:-
__________
Page 7 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
(i) No individual notices were issued to the petitioners calling for
objections against the acquisition. The person, who said to have
represented the petitioners in the enquiry conducted by the
nd
2 respondent under Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation Act is not the authorised representative of the
petitioners.
(ii) The respondents failed to consider the availability of uncultivated
barren lands in the nearby vicinity and hence, the Rule 14(C) of
Tamil Nadu Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tamil Nadu Rules 2017’ for
brevity) has not been complied.
(iii) The respondents have not conducted any Social Impact Assessment
study in consultation with Local Panchayat before initiating the
acquisition proceedings.
(iv) The respondents have not given reasonable opportunity to the
petitioners to make their objections to the acquisition and hence,
their right to object has been violated.
rd
(v) The 3 respondent has not given any valid reason for overruling
the objections and hence, his order is vitiated.
__________
Page 8 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
5. In support of his contention, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners relied on the following judgments:-
(i) Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another vs. Bimal Kumar
Shah and others reported in (2024) 10 SCC 533 .
(ii) I.I.S. Employees’ House Building Coop. Socieity Ltd., vs.
State of Karnataka and others reported in (2005) 12 SCC 483 .
(iii) Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana and others
reported in (2012) 1 SCC 792 .
(iv) Ravisam vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported in 2020 (2)
CWC 210 .
(v) S.R.Krishnamoorthi and others vs. The State of Tamil Nadu
and another reported in 2001 Supreme (Mad) 1049 : 2001 (3)
MLJ 576 .
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the respondents would submit that proper notice was issued to the
petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.21260 of 2026 for the enquiry regarding the
objections under Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act and
he was represented by his Farm Manager-M.Mariyappan in the said
enquiry. Therefore, according to the learned Additional Advocate
__________
Page 9 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
General, the submission regarding non-issue of notice and failure to give
reasonable opportunity to the petitioners are unacceptable. The learned
Additional Advocate General by drawing the attention of this Court to
Sections 186 and 187 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 would submit that
the Farm Manager-M.Mariyappan has got implied authority to represent
his Principals namely the petitioners. As far as the petitioners in
W.P.(MD).Nos.27406 and 27405 of 2026 are concerned, it was conceded
by the learned Additional Advocate General that no individual notices
were issued to them for enquiry under Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation Act. However, according to the learned Additional
Advocate General, they had sufficient knowledge of the enquiry as notice
was served on the petitioner, who happens to be one of the family
member.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that
under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, no individual
notice to affected land owners is contemplated. It is also submitted that
individual notice for enquiry under Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation Act, is necessary only for the persons, who submitted their
objections in response to the preliminary notification under Section 11 of
the Right to Fair Compensation Act. According to him, in the case on
__________
Page 10 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
hand, the petitioners never responded to the preliminary notification
under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act and hence, the
question of issuing individual notice to the petitioners will not arise.
8. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that
rd
the impugned order passed by the 3 respondent is only a communication
to the petitioners regarding the acquisition proceedings and it is not an
order overruling their objections. It is also submitted that the petitioners
failed to submit their objections before final notification under Section
19(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act and hence, any objections
submitted by the petitioners after publication of final notification, need
not be considered. The learned Additional Advocate General also raised a
preliminary point that the writ petition in W.P.(MD).No.21260 of 2026 is
not at all maintainable without challenging the preliminary notification or
final notification as petitioner challenges only the Administrative
Sanction and the communication of the Special District Revenue Officer
(Land Acquisition).
9. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondents and perused the materials available on record.
__________
Page 11 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
10. The core contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners is that absence of an individual notice to the
petitioners and the denial of right of hearing under Section 15(2) of the
Right to Fair Compensation Act. In the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents to W.P.(MD).No.21260 of 2026, it is asserted that individual
notice was sent to the petitioner and his representative-M.Mariyappan
participated in the enquiry. It is also asserted that notices were sent to the
other interested persons also by way of speed post.
11. A perusal of the typed-set of papers filed before this Court
would indicate that the individual notice in Form-V was sent to the
petitioners and the same was received by one M.Mariyappan describing
himself as Farm Manager. However, in the said notice, the full address of
the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.21260 of 2026 has not been mentioned. It
is also seen from the typed-set of papers that the individual notice was
also sent to the Pune address of the petitioner and the same was received
on 22.05.2025. The postal acknowledgement dated 22.05.2025 produced
in the typed-set of papers has not been disputed by the petitioner in
W.P.(MD).No.21260 of 2026. In the absence of any specific stand by the
petitioner disputing the postal acknowledgement dated 22.05.2025,
though the signature of the petitioner is not found thereon, it is clear that
__________
Page 12 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
somebody in the Office of the petitioner received it and it is not the case
of the petitioner that it was served on unknown person. The address
mentioned in the postal acknowledgement card is also not disputed by the
petitioner. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the
individual notice for Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act
has been properly served on the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.21260 of
2026.
12. It is vehemently contended that the person, who represented the
petitioner is not the authorised representative of the petitioner. It is seen
from the typed-set of papers filed by the respondents that one
M.Mariyappan describing himself as Farm Manager, appeared on behalf
of petitioner-David Koil Pillai and objected to the land acquisition. In the
letters submitted by him before the Authority, he has not given any
specific objection except to say that out of 70 acres proposed to be
acquired from the petitioner, the acquisition proceedings shall be
restricted to only 20 acres and the remaining lands shall be released from
the acquisition proceedings. It is vehemently contended that the said
M.Mariyappan is not the authorised representative. Though there is no
material available on record to suggest M.Mariyappan was the authorised
representative of the petitioner, when enquiry notice has been served on
__________
Page 13 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
the petitioner in his Pune address, the non-participation of the petitioner
in the enquiry will not vitiate the final notification. In the light of the
documents available in the typed-set of papers of the respondents
produced before this Court especially the postal acknowledgement card
dated 22.05.2025, this Court comes to the conclusion that Section 15(2)
enquiry notice was served on the petitioner at his Pune address and the
submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners that no individual notice was served on the petitioner is not
acceptable as far as the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.21260 of 2026 is
concerned.
13. As far as the petitioners in other two writ petitions in
W.P.(MD).Nos.27406 and 27405 of 2026 are concerned, the respondents
have not produced any material to establish that individual notices were
served on them. Though in the counter affidavit filed in
W.P.(MD).No.21260 of 2026, it was asserted that individual notices were
sent to all interested persons, the respondents are not chosen to file
counter affidavit to writ petitions in W.P.(MD).Nos.27406 and 27405 of
2026, denying the averment of the petitioners that no individual notice
was served on them.
__________
Page 14 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
14. At the time of argument, no materials have been produced
before this Court to show that individual notices were served on the writ
petitioners in W.P.(MD).Nos.27405 and 27406 of 2026. The learned
Additional Advocate General at the time of argument fairly conceded that
no individual notices were served on the petitioners in W.P.
(MD).Nos.27406 and 27405 of 2026. Hence, this Court comes to the
conclusion that Section 15(2) enquiry notice was not served on the
petitioners in W.P.(MD).Nos.27406 and 27405 of 2026 individually.
However, it was argued by the learned Additional Advocate General that
neither the Act nor the Rules contemplate service of individual notices
and general notification in the Official Gazette, Newspapers etc., are
deemed to be a sufficient service. It is also submitted that the petitioners
failed to file their objections to the preliminary notification under Section
11 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act and hence, notice to them for
the purpose of Section 15(2) enquiry is not at all necessary. In other
words, it is the specific submission of the learned Additional Advocate
General that only in cases where the land owners objected to acquisition
in response to the preliminary notification, indivitual notice to them is
necessary in the Section 15(2) enquiry. As far as the land owners, who
failed to object to the preliminary notification, no separate notice is
necessary for the purpose of conducting Section 15(2) enquiry.
__________
Page 15 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
15. In Padmavathi and others vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and
others reported in (1978) 1 MLJ 223 : MANU/TN/0408/1976 , a Full
Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that under the Scheme of Old
Land Acquisition Act, there was no necessity to issue individual notice to
the persons aggrieved. The relevant observation reads as follows:-
“54. For the reasons stated above we do not feel
persuaded to imply in the provisions of Section 4(1) and
Section 5A of the Act, the necessity for issuing individual
notices to persons aggrieved, promoted by consideration of
natural justice. This means that the writ petitioners cannot
make a grievance of not having been individually served
with notices of acquisition.”
16. However, in a subsequent judgment in P.C.Thanikavelu vs.
The Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition, Madras and others
reported in AIR 1989 Mad 222 : MANU/TN/0227/1989 , a contrary view
was taken by a subsequent Full Bench of this Court. In the said decision,
the subsequent Full Bench referred to the Padmavathi case cited supra
and held that the decision in Padmavathi case did not reflect the true
statement of law. In P.C.Thanikavelu case, the Full Bench held that even
in the absence of express reference to observance of principles of natural
justice, but such principles should be followed whenever it affects the
__________
Page 16 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
rights of the parties. In case of compulsory acquisition of land, the right
of individual land owners are affected and hence, they should be put on
notice before their lands are acquired and their objection shall be heard
and considered. It is also held that the enquiry contemplated under
Section 5A of the Act would get fulfilled and become complete only
when the person, who is really interested in the land is put on notice.
However, it was held that individual notice is mandatory only to those
persons whose names are found in the revenue records or who are found
by the Collector as persons interested on the land based on information
received through reliable source. The relevant observation reads as
follows:-
“6. … … … … It is true that the Government has the
prerogative to acquire lands belonging to individuals for a
public purpose sanctioned under the theory of 'eminent
domain'. But the rule of law which governs and controls the
executive functions in the thread that runs through the fabric
of constitutional democracy, the rule of law behoves the
Government to act fairly and reasonably and the principles
of natural justice are the quintessence of such fair play and
reasonableness. The decision reported in Padmavathi v.
State of Tamil Nadu, (1978) 91 MLW 80 does not reflect the
true statement of law. The Supreme Court has held in
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India,
MANU/SC/0048/1981 : (1981) 2 SCR 533 that even in the
__________
Page 17 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
absence of express reference to observance of principles of
natural justice, such principles should be followed whenever
it affects the rights of parties. It cannot be gainsaid that
when the lands of an individual are acquired, albeit he may
be paid compensation, his civil rights may be affected. It is
therefore elementary that, to be consistent with the
principles of natural justice, such a person should be put on
notice before his lands are acquired and his objection heard
and considered. The enquiry contemplated under Section 5A
of the Act would be full and complete only when the person
who is really interested in the land is put on notice. But, at
the same time, it is made clear that individual notice is
mandatory only to those persons whose names are found in
the revenue records or who are found by the Collector as
persons interested on information received through reliable
source.”
17. In Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another vs. Bimal
Kumar Shah and others reported in (2024) 10 SCC 533 , the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that Right to Property recognised under Article
300-A of the Constitution of India has got ‘seven facets’ when it is
understood in the context of compulsory land acquisition. The relevant
observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court reads as follows:-
“30. What then are these sub-rights or strands of this
swadeshi constitutional fabric constituting the right to
__________
Page 18 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
property? Seven such sub-rights can be identified, albeit
non-exhaustive. These are:
i) the duty of the State to inform the person that it
intends to acquire his property – the right to notice,
ii) the duty of the State to hear objections to the
acquisition – the right to be heard,
iii) the duty of the State to inform the person of its
decision to acquire – the right to a reasoned decision,
iv) the duty of the State to demonstrate that the
acquisition is for public purpose – the duty to acquire only
for public purpose,
v) the duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate –
the right of restitution or fair compensation,
vi) the duty of the State to conduct the process of
acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the
proceedings – the right to an efficient and expeditious
process, and
vii) the final conclusion of the proceedings leading to
vesting – the right of conclusion.
31. These seven rights are foundational components of
a law that is tune with Article 300A, and the absence of one
of these or some of them would render the law susceptible to
challenge. The judgment of this Court in K.T. Plantations
(supra)15 declares that the law envisaged under Article
300A must be in line with the overarching principles of rule
of law, and must be just, fair, and reasonable. It is, of
__________
Page 19 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
course, precedentially sound to describe some of these sub-
rights as ‘procedural’, a nomenclature that often tends to
undermine the inherent worth of these safeguards. These
seven sub-rights may be procedures, but they do constitute
the real content of the right to property under Article 300A,
non- compliance of these will amount to violation of the
right, being without the authority of law.”
18. As far as the present case on hand is concerned, we are
concerned with two of the above mentioned sub-rights recognised by
Hon’ble Apex Court namely (i) the right to notice, (ii) the right to be
heard. Section 11, Section 15, Section 19 of the Right to Fair
Compensation Act, deal with these two rights. Section 11 talks about
issuance of preliminary notification regarding proposal of the
Government to acquire the lands. Section 15 talks about hearing of
objections to the acquisition proceedings. Section 19 talks about the final
declaration after considering the objections.
19. As far as the preliminary notification under Section 11 of the
said Act is concerned, no individual notice is contemplated. Section
11 (1)(a) to (e) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act read with Rule
13(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu Rules 2017 would indicate that no
individual notice is necessary as far as the preliminary notification is
__________
Page 20 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
concerned. Rule 13(3) of Tamil Nadu Rules 2017 mandates that after
preliminary notification, the Collector shall undertake and complete the
exercise of updating land records within a period of two months.
20. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents by relying on
Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, that individual
notice is not necessary to all the land owners, but it is necessary only for
the persons, who submitted their objections in response to the preliminary
notification.
21. A perusal of Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act
would indicate that there is no express mandate to issue individual notices
to the affected land owners. Section 15(2) of the said Act only mandates
consideration of objections under Section 15(1) of the Right to Fair
Compensation Act. If we say that no individual notice is necessary for
affected land owners, the right to notice and the right to be heard which
are recognised as essential facets of constitutional guarantee under Article
300-A of the Constitution of India in Kolkata Municipal Corporation
case will remain only in paper. If no individual notices are issued atleast
to the land owners, whose names are entered in the revenue records, the
enquiry contemplated under Section 15 of the Right to Fair
__________
Page 21 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
Compensation Act, will become a mere formality and it will not serve
any substantial purpose.
22. Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Rules, 2017 mandates that the
Collector shall issue a notice inviting objections to the preliminary
notification in Form-V. A perusal of the typed-set of papers would
indicate that Form-V notice was issued to the petitioner in W.P.
(MD).No.21260 of 2026. Rule 14 of the said Rules, does not say how
Form-V notice shall be served on the noticees. In the absence of any
provision in the statutory rules enabling authorities to serve Form-V
notice by resorting to any other method except by individual notice, we
should take it as mandate to serve notice individually to the noticees.
23. Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act read with
Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Rules 2017, describes the manner in which
the preliminary notification shall be issued. The said provisions do not
contemplate service of individual notices, it only contemplates general or
public notice. Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, mandate
the Collector to hear objections. It also says the Collector shall give
objector an opportunity of being heard in person. Rule 14 of the Tamil
Nadu Rules 2017, mandates that the Collector shall issue a notice in
__________
Page 22 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
Form-V and hear objections. In the absence of any indication either in the
Section in Parent Act (namely Section 15) and under Rule 14 of the
Tamil Nadu Rules 2017, regarding the manner of service, it shall be taken
that noticees shall be served personally.
24. In fact, the enquiry contemplated under Section 15 of the Right
to Fair Compensation Act is akin to the enquiry contemplated under
Section 5A of Old Land Acquisition Act. As mentioned earlier, a Full
Bench of this Court in P.C.Thanikavelu case cited supra, held individual
notice to land owners whose names are recorded in the revenue records is
mandatory, the same has been subsequently followed by a Division
Bench of this Court in Ravisam vs. Government of Tamil Nadu reported
in 2020 (2) CWC 210 . Therefore, I hold individual notices to the affected
land owners whose names are recorded in the revenue records are
mandatory for the purpose conducting the enquiry under Section 15 of the
Right to Fair Compensation Act read with Rule 14 of Tamil Nadu Rules
2017.
25. This Court already came to the conclusion that individual
notice was properly served on the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.21260 of
2026. Therefore, the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for
__________
Page 23 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
the petitioner regarding absence of notice is not appealable to this Court.
As far as the petitioners in W.P.(MD).Nos.27406 and 27405 of 2026 are
concerned, this Court came to the conclusion that individual notices were
not served on them prior to the Section 15(2) enquiry. Therefore, the final
notification under Section 19 of the said Act gets vitiated and the land
acquisition proceeding is liable to be quashed from the stage of Section
15(2) enquiry.
26. It was contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioners that no Social Impact Assessment Study was conducted by
the respondents. However, a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents would indicate Social Impact Assessment Study was
conducted by an agency called ‘Quadrant Pole Private Limited, Madurai’.
The notification of Social Impact Assessment issued under Section 4(1)
of the Right to Fair Compensation Act. The notification issued in the
Daily Newspapers the Social Impact Assessment report submitted by the
Expert Committee dated 04.12.2024 and the order passed by the District
Collector approving the recommendations of the Expert Committee under
Section 8 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act etc., are produced in the
typed-set of papers. Therefore, the submission made by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioners that no proper Social Impact
__________
Page 24 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
Assessment Study was conducted by the respondents is not appealable to
this Court.
27. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners also
rd
submitted that the impugned order passed by the 3 respondent contains
no reasons for overruling the objection of the petitioners and hence, the
same is liable to be set aside. A narration of the facts leading to filing of
these writ petitions would indicate the petitioners failed to file any
objection in response to the preliminary notification. The objections of
the petitioners were filed only after final notification under Section 19 of
the Right to Fair Compensation Act. As per the Scheme of the Act, after
rd
publication of final notification, the 3 respondent is not entitled to
consider the objections of the petitioners. Therefore, as rightly contended
by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
rd
respondents the impugned communication of the 3 respondent cannot be
treated as an order overruling the objections of the petitioners. It is only a
communication intimating the petitioners about the acquisition
proceedings of the respondents. If at all the objections of the petitioners
nd
can be considered only by the 2 respondent that too in an enquiry under
Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act. The petitioner in W.P.
(MD).No.21260 of 2026, inspite of service of individual notice, failed to
__________
Page 25 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
submit his objections. The objection letters submitted by the alleged
Authorised Agent-M.Mariyappan does not contain any substantial
objection, he only sought for release of portion of the lands sought to be
acquired. As far as the other petitioners are concerned, they not even
submitted objections as no notice was served on them. In such
rd
circumstances, the impugned order passed by the 3 respondent cannot
be treated as an order overruling the objections of the petitioners. At the
most, it can only be treated as a communication to the petitioners
rd
regarding the acquisition proceedings. The 3 respondent has no power to
consider the objection. Further the question of considering the objections
after final notification is not at all contemplated. Hence, the said
submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners is not acceptable to this Court.
28. In the light of the discussions made earlier, the Writ Petition in
W.P.(MD).No.21260 of 2026 stands dismissed. The Writ Petitions in
W.P.(MD).Nos.27406 and 27405 of 2026 are partly allowed by quashing
nd
the impugned notification issued by the 2 respondent in
Na.Ka.No.Na.Ni.E.3/61/2022, dated 26.11.2025, insofar as said
petitioners are concerned. The respondents are given liberty to continue
the land acquisition proceedings from the stage of Section 15(2) enquiry,
__________
Page 26 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
after issuing the individual notices to the petitioners W.P.(MD).No.27405
and 27406 of 2026.
29. All the Writ Petitions are disposed of as indicated above. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
29.10.2026
(1/2)
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
dm
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Water Resources Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The District Collector
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3. The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition),
Special District Revenue Office,
River Interlinking Project,
Tirunelveli.
4. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition),
River Interlinking Project (Unit-7),
Tirunelveli.
__________
Page 27 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
W.P.(MD).Nos.21260, 27405 and 27406 of 2026
29.10.2026
(1/2)
__________
Page 28 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 02:33:12 pm )