Madras HC Orders 2-Week Deposit Of Compensation For Disputed Madurai Land, Leaves Rival Claimants To Establish Entitlement

In brief

The question

1. Whether the acquiring authority could withhold payment of compensation where rival claims to the acquired lands had been raised.

The court held

The Court disposed of both writ petitions without deciding which party was entitled to the compensation.

It also directed

It directed the District Revenue Officer (Special), Land Acquisition, Highways Department, Madurai, to deposit the compensation for Survey Nos. 4 and 5 within two weeks. The petitioners were at liberty to approach the authority receiving the deposit and establish their claims; that authority was requested to dispose of the reference expeditiously. No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

01Facts

The petitions arose from competing claims to compensation for land acquired in Survey Nos. 4 and 5, Ramankulam Village, Madurai South Taluk. Mylvaganan Lakshmanan sought payment of compensation for land in Survey No. 5; Jamal Khan, Jahir Hussain and Jakeela Banu sought to prevent payment to Mylvaganan and Sivasubramani in respect of the acquired lands.

pp. 3–4

The District Revenue Officer (Special), by order dated 30 March 2026, declined to pay compensation because of the rival claims. Both sides challenged that order, and the Court was informed that the compensation had not yet been deposited with the competent authority.

pp. 4–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the acquiring authority could withhold payment of compensation where rival claims to the acquired lands had been raised.

pp. 4–5

ii.2. Whether the compensation should be deposited with the competent authority pending resolution of the parties’ competing claims.

pp. 5–6

03Law Applied

The Court applied Sections 76 and 77 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

p. 5

It stated that, where there are competing claims to compensation, Section 77(2) empowers the acquiring authority to deposit the amount before the competent authority specified under Section 64, identified by the Court as the jurisdictional Sub Court; the parties may then establish their respective rights through the statutory process under Sections 76 and 77.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 77 Section 64 Section 76

04Reasoning

Because the parties asserted rival claims to the acquired lands, the Court considered that payment directly to either side would not resolve entitlement.

pp. 5–6

The statutory course was to deposit the compensation with the competent authority and leave the competing claimants to establish their rights there. As the amount had not yet been deposited, the Court directed the District Revenue Officer (Special) to make the deposit and required the competent authority to place it in an interest-bearing account pending determination of entitlement.

pp. 5–6