Case Note & Summary
The judgment involves a writ petition filed by Tmt. Kumari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to consider her representations dated 27.04.2024 and 08.05.2024 for allotment of alternate land in lieu of land acquired for road widening. The petitioner claimed that 759 square feet of land out of 1640 square feet in Plot No.1, Survey No.68/6, Tiruthani Town should be taken over in exchange for land in Survey No.58/6A1A1 part. Additionally, four review petitions were filed by V. Perumal, Ramya, S. Thanigaivelan, and N. Devaki seeking review of orders dated 02.04.2024 passed in W.P. Nos. 6423, 6426, 6422, and 6420 of 2023 respectively. The court noted that the petitioners in the review petitions had earlier filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition, which were dismissed. The court found that the petitioners had accepted compensation and did not challenge the acquisition proceedings, thus they cannot claim alternate land. The court held that the writ petition for mandamus is not maintainable as the petitioner has no legal right to alternate land. The review petitions were also dismissed as they did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. The court emphasized that the petitioners had acquiesced to the acquisition by accepting compensation and cannot now seek alternate land. The judgment was delivered by a division bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Surender on 02.04.2026.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Entitlement to Alternate Land - The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider her representation for allotment of alternate land in lieu of land acquired for road widening. The court held that since the petitioner did not challenge the acquisition proceedings and accepted compensation, she cannot claim alternate land as a matter of right. (Paras 1-7) B) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Maintainability - The review petitions were filed against the dismissal of earlier writ petitions. The court held that the review petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record or any new evidence. (Paras 1-7) C) Property Law - Land Acquisition - Alternate Land - The court observed that the petitioners had accepted compensation and did not challenge the acquisition, thus they are estopped from claiming alternate land. The court dismissed the writ petition and review petitions. (Paras 1-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider her representation for allotment of alternate land in lieu of acquired land, and whether the review petitions against the dismissal of earlier writ petitions are maintainable.
Final Decision
The writ petition and all review petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Law Points
- Writ of mandamus
- Land acquisition
- Alternate land
- Review petition
- Delay and laches
- Acquiescence
