The Secretary To Government, vs Sasikumar,

2026:MHC:2828
WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 25.06.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
WA(MD). Nos.1617, 1618 and 1619 of 2024
and
CMP(MD)Nos.12677, 12678 and 12679 of 2024
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai -9.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Public Works Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai -9.
3. The Secretary to Government,
Revenue Department (Disaster Management)
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai-9.
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
4. The Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Kamarajar Salai,
Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
5. The District Collector,
Tiruchirappalli District,
Tiruchirappalli.
6. The District Collector,
Karur District,
Karur.
7. The Superintending Engineer,
Cauveri River bed,
Public Works Department,
Tiruchirappalli District.
8. The Executive Engineer,
Cauveri River bed,
Public Works Department,
Mukkombu (Elamanur),
Srirangam Taluk,
Tiruchirappalli District.
2/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
9. The Inspector of Police,
Pettavaithalai Police Station,
Trichy District.
... Appellants/ Respondents 1 to 9
Vs.
st
Sasikumar ...1 Respondent in WA(MD)No.1617/2024/
writ petitioner in WP(MD)No.19637/2014
st
Jothimani ...1 Respondent in WA(MD)No.1618/2024/
writ petitioner in WP(MD)No.19638/2014
st
K.Chandran ...1 Respondent in WA(MD)No.1619/2024/
writ petitioner in WP(MD)No.19639/2014
2. The State Environment Impact
Assessment Authority,
9, Jeenis Road,
Near Government Hospital,
Anna Nagar West,
nd
Saidapet, Chennai. ... 2 Respondent in all W.As/
th
10 Respondent in all W.Ps
COMMON PRAYER :- Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters
Patent, praying to prefer this Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeal
against the order dated 21.12.2023 passed by this Court made in WP(MD).
Nos.19637 to 19639 of 2014 on the file of this Court.
3/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
(In all Writ Appeals)
For Appellants : Mr.M.P.Senthil,
Government Pleader for A1 to A8
: Mr.I.Murugesan,
Government Advocate for A9

For Respondents : Mr.K.M.Boopathy For R1,
: Mr.N.Dilipkumar For R2,

COMMON JUDGMENT
P.B.BALAJI,J.

The State is on appeal, challenging the common order of the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(MD)Nos.19637 to 19639 of 2014, dated 21.02.2023.
2. We have heard Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned Government Pleader for
the appellants 1 to 8, Mr.I.Murugesan, learned Government Advocate for
the ninth appellant, Mr.K.M.Boopathy, learned counsel for the contesting
first respondents, the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge and
Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned counsel for the second respondent.
4/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
3. All these writ appeals arise out of a common order passed by the
Writ Court.
4. Brief facts, that may be necessary for a decision in these appeals,
are culled out hereunder:
The writ petitioners have filed the respective writ petitions, seeking
compensation for the death of the wife, viz., Umadevi aged about 31 years
and minor daughter, viz., Deepa aged about 12 years (in W.P.(MD)No.
19637 of 2014); daughter, viz., Praveena aged about 18 years ( in W.P.
(MD)No.19638 of 2014), and minor son, viz.,Jeevanantham (in W.P.
(MD)No.19639 of 2014) respectively. Admittedly, the case of the writ
petitioner in all the writ petitions was that there was a temple festival
conducted on 29.04.2013 in their village and as a part of the festival, a
Theerthavari was conducted in the Cauvery river, at about 06.30 am and
around 200 villagers participated to take a holy bath. It is the specific
contention of the petitioners that the deceased persons, four in number,
were trapped in quicksand and died due to drowning. One Periyasamy of
5/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
the said village had lodged a complaint and a criminal case was also
registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pettavaithalai Police Station,
Tiruchirappalli, in Crime No.57 of 2013. The specific ground of attack in
all the writ petitions was that the deaths were caused solely due to illegal
quarrying operations in the river and, therefore, the State is bound to
compensate the kith and kin of the deceased, who are the writ petitioners.
5. The appellants filed a counter affidavit contending that though
the deaths were unfortunate, they were not caused by any quarrying
operations. According to the appellants, the deceased were trapped in
quicksand, which engulfed them, resulting in their drowning and
consequent demise. It was the specific contention of the appellants before
the writ Court that no quarrying operations had in fact been permitted
within a radius of 1,500 metres.
6. The Writ Court, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court, in a batch of writ petitions in WP(MD)No.4251 of
2017 etc., dated 16.02.2018, in which, in one of the writ petitions in WP.
(MD)No.17531 of 2017, there was a claim for compensation, because of
6/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
drowning in the river Cauvery which was allowed on 16.02.2018, held
that the State therefore is liable to compensate the writ petitioners.
7. The Writ Court, pending the writ petitions passed an interim
order on 27.06.2023, directing the appellants to furnish the following
information:-
“(i) as to the number of deaths that had occurred in the
river Cauvery for the past ten years, on account of the
alleged quick sand;
(ii) what is the mechanism adopted by PWD to identify the
places where there is a possible of quick sand; and
(iii) in how many places, caution boards have been
affixed across river Cauvery”
8. Taking into account the response of the Executive Engineer and
also the fact that the Executive Engineer, viz., eighth respondent in the
writ petitions, had filed a counter expressing that reasonable
compensation, in accordance with the procedure established by law would
be paid, directed the appellants to compensate the petitioners in the
manner provided and set out in W.P.(MD)No.17531 of 2017, within a
period of twelve weeks.
7/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
9. As against the said common order, the present writ appeals have
been filed.
10. In fact, writ appeals were admitted by this Court and an
unconditional interim stay was also granted on 24.09.2024.
11. Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned Government Pleader appearing for the
appellants 1 to 8, would firstly contend that the writ petitioners have not
established the cause of the deaths being directly linked to the alleged
illegal quarrying. In fact, he would point out that the Dam sluices had also
been closed and there was no supply of water as well in the river bed and
therefore, it cannot even be stated that the drowning was on account of
water flowing with great force which might have caused the drowing. That
apart, with regard to the allegation of the writ petitioners that the
drowning was only on account of the illegal quarrying, Mr.M.P.Senthil,
learned Government Pleader, would state that even prior to a year and half
or thereabouts, the Collector had permitted quarrying in certain specified
places and therefore, it was not even proper to allege that there was illegal
8/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
quarrying, which led to the unfortunate deaths. Unlike, in the case before
the Hon'ble Division Bench, where the facts were completely different and
the Hon'ble Division Bench (to which one of us G.R.S.J., was a party)
went on to give categorical finding that rampant illegal quarrying was
going on and Mr.M.P.Senthil, would therefore contend that the said
judgment cannot be applied to the facts of the present cases.
12. Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned Government Pleader, would further
contend that without fixing liability, the learned Single Judge erred in
directing payment of compensation to be calculated in terms of the order
passed in the batch of writ petitions in WP(MD)No.4251 of 2017 etc.
13. Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned Government Pleader, in support of his
submissions, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd., v. Sukamani Das, reported
in 1999-7-SCC-298 .
9/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
14. Per contra, Mr.K.M.Boopathy, learned counsel for the writ
petitioners, would contend that the orders of the Hon'ble Division Bench
granting compensation to be paid in terms of the procedure available
under the Motor Vehicles Act, in a batch of writ petitions in WP(MD)No.
4251 of 2017 etc., was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well
with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition and subsequently, the
compensation has also been paid, as directed by the Hon'ble Division
Bench. He would therefore state that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Division Bench has been rightly followed and there is no error or infirmity
in the order of the writ Court, directing the appellants to compensate the
writ petitioners. Insofar as the liability of the State, the learned counsel
would contend that even assuming quarrying had been permitted, the State
ought to have fixed caution boards and cautioned the villagers not to
venture into danger zones. Admittedly, no sign boards were placed and
therefore, the State was therefore negligent and rightly the learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed compensation to be paid to
the writ petitioners. He would therefore pray for dismissal of these writ
appeals.
10/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
15. We have paid our anxious and careful consideration to the
submissions advanced on either side.
16. It is certainly unfortunate that a young mother aged about 31
years, lost her minor daughter aged 12 years (deceased in W.A.(MD)No.
1617 of 2024), a young girl aged about 19 years (deceased in W.A.
(MD)No.1618 of 2024), and minor boy aged about 10 years (deceased in
W.A.(MD)No.1619 of 2024) have admittedly died drowning in the river
Cauvery. On the fateful day, about 200 villagers have assembled in the
river bed to take a holy dip, as part of a temple festival and religious
celebrations. The fact that the deceased have died on the fateful day, on
account of drowning is not disputed by either of the parties. The only
question is as to whether there has been any negligence on the part of the
appellants, to direct them to compensate the kith and kin of the deceased,
fixing liability on their shoulders.
17. Though it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for
the writ petitioners that the drowning was only on account of illegal
11/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
quarrying, from the stand of the appellants, by way of counter affidavit
before the writ Court, we do not see that there has been any admission of
the allegations of the writ petitioners that there has been any illegal
quarrying which has alone resulted in the drowning of the deceased. In
fact, the appellants have taken a specific stand that the drowning was only
on account of quicksand near Perugamani, Srirangam Taluk, and the
incident was occasioned only because of the carelessness and negligence
of the people, who had ventured into the river, despite being warned by
the villagers that it was dangerous to do so. It has also been specifically
stated in the counter affidavit that the formation of quick sand had
anything to do with quarrying activities. As regards cautioning the public
by installing notice boards, it has been the stand of the appellants that the
Cauvery river is of length of more than 200 Km and it is virtually
impossible to predict the locations of quicksand and therefore, the
authorities cannot be blamed for not fixing caution boards.
18. In fact, in response to the interim order passed by the learned
Single Judge, the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, has
stated that loose sand, as result of huge quantity of water flowing in the
12/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
river would travel and get settled at various places and may saturate and
form quicksand. The Executive Engineer has also stated that whereever
risks are high, caution boards were put up in as many as nine places. It is
thus clear from the above discussion that the appellants have not admitted
the cause of the deaths of the deceased to be drowning as a result of being
trapped in quick sand, which has been formed because of quarrying
activities. Before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the batch of
writ petitions, in WP(MD)No.4251 of 2017 etc., the allegations made by
the writ petitioners were that there was large-scale illegal sand quarrying
carried out by the sand mafia in blatant violation of the applicable
statutory and environmental norms. In the said factual context and
background, while dealing with one of the writ petitions for
compensation, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, finding that
illegal quarrying was rampant and was being carried on with the tacit
approval and connivance of the authorities held that such quarrying had
caused pits to a depth of 30-40 feet on the river bed, rendered a categorical
finding, on available facts, and held that the incident took place solely on
the ground of negligence and inaction of the officials of the Public Works
Department and Revenue Department. The Hon'ble Division Bench also
13/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
found that mining operation was undertaken beyond the permitted depth,
which had caused the death of a 19 year old student, who was pursuing
Engineering in Computer Science. Further, no counter affidavit had been
filed by the State with regard to the claim for compensation and that was
also taken note of and therefore in an all over all assessment of entire facts
and circumstances, the Hon'ble Division Bench held that the writ Court
can award compensation without driving the aggrieved to the Civil Court
and consequently, applied the multiplier method as set out in the Motor
Vehicles Act and proceeded to fix the compensation at Rs.26,00,000/-.
19. No doubt, the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench was affirmed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court finding no grounds to interfere, while
dismissing the Special Leave Petition.
20. In the present case, the appellants have categorically denied any
negligence on their part and have also specifically denied the cause of the
deaths to be linked or related to the quarrying activities or sand mining
activities, much less illegal activities. We are therefore unable to see how
the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court can be applied to
14/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
the facts of the present case.
21. Firstly, it should be borne in mind that nearly 200 villagers had
assembled in the Cauvery river to take a holy dip as part of religious
festivities and their presence at the place of occurrence was entirely, out of
their own volition. There was no prior intimation about the said festival or
the holy dip to be taken by the villagers on the fateful day, to the
authorities, including the police officials. It is certainly unfortunate that
the deceased are two minor children and one girl aged about 19 years and
a young mother aged about 31 years. Admittedly, they were in the midst
of 200 villagers and the fact that the deceased are minors and a young girl
and young lady would only go to show that the deceased were innocent
victims. Unless parties adduce evidence and establish the manner in
which the drowning happened, compensation, if any payable, especially
on the ground of negligence cannot be arrived at. More so, in the present
case, where the appellants have specifically pleaded that inspite of local
villagers cautioning the villagers not to venture into the river bed, the
villagers proceeded into the river, as a result of which four lives were lost.
Thus, these are matters for trial before the competent civil Court. The writ
15/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
Court unfortunately had applied the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Division Bench in WP(MD)No.4251 of 2017 etc., without noticing the
distinguishing that the factors in the present case, especially, the specific
stand that the deceased were solely responsible and had contributed for
their deaths and that there has been no negligence on their part.
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Grid Corporation 's
case, held that when compensation is sought on the ground of negligence
of the authorities and their employees and the version of the writ
petitioners was disputed by raising defence, then, it was a fit case which
could not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but
a case where an action in tort and negligence was required to be
established by the claimant before becoming entitled to any compensation.
The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would squarely apply
to the facts of the present case. However, at the same time, we are
mindful of the fact that the eighth respondent in the writ petitio, one of the
appellants herein, filed a counter affidavit, stating that the State had
decided to reasonably compensate the family of the deceased, which had
weighed in the mind of the Writ Court, to direct them to pay
16/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
compensation. The appellants do not dispute the fact that such an affidavit
was filed before the writ Court. On going through the said affidavit of the
eighth respondent in the writ petitions, we do not see that there was any
specific admission of liability. However, we find that in the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2, they have specifically denied
the entitlement of the petitioners to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. Paragraph No. 7 of the counter-affidavit reads as follows:
“ It is respectfully submitted that the averments
raised in the present writ petition for seeking compensation
is farfetched defying imagination as the deceased are
responsible for their own act on the maxim “VOLENTI
NON FIT INJURIA” as they without heeding to the warning
ventured into moving through quick sand on their own
accord and their death how-so-ever lamentable which
more-so is tantamount to act of God, and since they
themselves are squarely responsible for their own action
and they are hardly in a position to seek compensation in
accordance with law. It is made clear that the facts
narrated by the petitioner is highly disputed and it can be
resolved by way of let in evident through the competent civil
Court. There only the liability of compensation would arise.
When the facts itself is in dispute, this writ petition not
maintainable under the Article 226 of the Constitution of
17/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
India. Inasmuch as question of dispute of facts is involved
they have civil remedy available to them before the
competent civil Court and hence, taking recourse under the
efficacious jurisdiction conferred on this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is impermissible in
law.”
th
23. Similarly, the Inspector of Police/9 respondent in the writ
petitions, on 09.03.2016, the second respondent of the counter affidavit,
reads as follows:
“I humbly stated that the allegations in paragraphs 6
and 7 are nothing but fallacious imagination. It is submitted
that necessary warnings were made known to the public and
in spite of the warnings of villagers, the victims without
feeding to the same ventured on negligent act moving into
the river. Sufficient awareness was created among the
Public by the authorities concerned. So the act of victims is
nothing but their own negligence. So the claim of
compensation is not tenable and liable to be dismissed in
limit. It is respectfully submitted that the averments raised
in the present writ petition for seeking compensation is
farfetched defying imagination as the deceased are
responsible for their own act on the maximum “VOLENT
18/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
NON FIT INJURIA” as they without heeding to the warning
ventured into moving through quick sand on their own
accord and their death how-so-ever lamentable which
squarely responsible for their own action and they are
hardly in a position to seek compensation in accordance
with law. It is made clear that the facts narrated by the
petitioner is highly disputed and it can be resolved by way
of let in evident through the competent civil Court. There
only the liability of compensation would arise. When the
facts itself is in dispute, this writ petition not maintainable
under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Inasmuch
as question of dispute of facts is involved they have civil
remedy available to them before the competent Civil Court
and hence taking.”
24. It is only after the writ Court posed certain queries before
passing an interim order, the eighth respondent in the writ petitions, filed
an affidavit in the manner following:
“9. I further submit that despite the abovesaid
negligent act of the petitioner's family, being a Welfare
State, the Government Machinery has taken a
sympathetic and humanitarian approach towards the
19/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
case in hand. Hence, the Government is ready to pay the
reasonable compensation in accordance with the
procedure established by law, for the loss which was
occurred to the petitioner herein, whereas, since the
matter is subjudice before this Hon'ble Court, the matter
was kept in abeyance till further orders from this Hon'ble
Court.
10. I further submit that a reasonable
compensation would be provided to the petitioner for his
loss in obedience to the orders of this Hon'ble Court in
the manner known to law and the State is ready to comply
with the directions, if any.
11. It is pertinent to be noted that neither the
petitioner approached the concerned authorities nor filed
any new representations in order to process the
compensation after filing this Writ. Moreover, since the
case is pending for disposal before this Hon'ble Court,
the authorities were hesitant too in processing the
compensation to the petitioner.
Therefore, in the light of the abovesaid facts and
circumstances, it is evident that the respondents being a
Welfare State is always ready to comply with the orders
and directions which are to be issued by this Hon'ble
Court. ”
20/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
25. In fact, the writ Court has specifically recorded the stand taken
by the respondent that since they have decided to pay compensation on a
sympathetic consideration alone and allowed the writ petitions. The
learned Government Pleader does not dispute the fact that such an
affidavit was filed by the eighth respondent. However, considering the
consistent stand taken by the respondents in the counter statement to the
writ petitions and also in view of the findings arrived at by us
hereinabove, that it is a clear case of applying the legal maxim
“VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA”. The deceased can only blame
themselves to have contributed for the incident and their deaths. If at all it
is the case of the writ petitioners that the drowning was only on account of
the inaction of the authorities to curb illegal mining and quarrying
activities, then, it is a matter for proof and compensation can be claimed
only before the competent civil Court by way of pleadings and also letting
in oral and documentary evidence.
26. With regard to the allegations of the writ petitioners that the
appellants have been negligent in not putting up caution boards, we are
21/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
unable to countenance the said allegations. Admittedly, river Cauvery runs
through different States in our country and is easily of a length of more
than 200 kms. As rightly contended by Mr.M.P.Senthil, learned
Government Pleader for the appellants 1 to 8, it would be virtually
impossible for the authorities to place caution boards across the entire
stretch of the river. Further, there is also no possibility determining the
exact locations where quicksand formations will pose dangers. Even in the
counter affidavit to the writ petitions, the appellants have specifically
stated that the local villagers had cautioned the people not to enter into the
riverbed and despite such warnings, the congregation of 200 people,
without heeding to the cautioning by the local villagers, went ahead to
take the holy dip. Therefore, we do not think it as an open and shut case
where negligence can be attributed on the appellants without there being
any requirement for adducing any kind of evidence.
27. However, considering that the writ petitioners have lost their
wife, aged about 31 years and minor child, aged about 12 years [in W.A.
(MD)No.1617 of 2024] young girl, aged about 19 years [in W.A.(MD)No.
(MD)No.1618 of 2024] and a minor son, aged about 10 years [in W.A.
22/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
(MD)No.1619 of 2024] and also taking into account the fact that the writ
petitions were filed even in the year 2014 and more than 12 years have
passed since then and also in the light of the statements made in the course
of final hearing of the writ petitions by the Executive Engineer, Cauvery
river bed, Public Works Department, that the authorities are willing to
reasonably compensate the writ petitioners, we direct the appellants to pay
a ex-gratia compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- to writ petitioner in W.P.
19637 of 2014, Rs.5,00,000/- to the writ petitioner in WP(MD)No.19638
of 2024 and Rs.5,00,000/- to the writ petitioner in WP(MD)No.19639 of
2024.
28. This direction to take ex-gratia compensation is purely on
humanitarian grounds and specifically issued in the light of the stand
taken by the eighth respondent in the writ petitions, that the State would
pay reasonable compensation to the writ petitioners, being a welfare State,
on sympathetic and humanitarian approach alone.
23/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
29. We are however, at the same time unable to approve the
directions of the writ Court, directing the compensation to be worked out
and paid in line with the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court in WP(MD)No.4251 of 2017 etc., dated 16.02.2018. We, however,
make it clear that if at all the writ petitioners are aggrieved by the quantum
of ex-gratia compensation and they are advised suitably to make further
claims for compensation, they are at liberty to approach the competent
civil Court and file a suit seeking compensation from the authorities
concerned in the manner known to law. Considering that the writ petitions
and the appeals have been pending before this Court for the last 12 years,
we also make it clear that if any such suit is filed within a period of one
month from the compensation being paid by the appellants, or within a
period of six months, which ever is later, then, the civil Court where the
claim for compensation is made, without putting limitation against the
plaintiffs, shall entertain the suits and dispose of the same, on its own
merits and as expeditiously as possible.
24/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
30. In the result, these Writ Appeals are partly allowed in terms of
paragraphs 27 and 29 hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[G.R.S.J.,] & [P.B.B.J.,]
25.06.2026
NCC:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes
LS
TO
1. The State Environment Impact,
Assessment Authority,
9, Jeenis Road,
Near Government Hospital,
Anna Nagar
West, Saidapet,
Chennai.
25/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )

WA(MD). No.1617 of 2024
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J
AND
P.B. BALAJI,J.
LS

WA(MD) Nos.1617, 1618 and 1619 of 2024
25.06.2026
26/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/07/2026 11:36:49 am )