CRP/1079/2025 of KALA Vs ELUMALAI (DIED) 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
CRP No. 1079 of 2025
__________
Page1 of 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
CRP No. 1079 of 2025
AND
CMP NO. 6147 OF 2025
1. Kala
W/o. Elumalai, Res. at No.136/142, K.P.
Garden, Madhavaram, Chennai – 60.
2. Vinoth
S/o. Elumalai, Res. at No.136/142, K.P.
Garden, Madhavaram, Chennai - 60.
3. Vimalraj
s/o. Elumalai, Res. at No.136/142, K.P. Garden,
Madhavaram, Chennai - 060.
4. Pavithra
D/o. Elumalai, Res. at No.136/142, K.P.
Garden, Madhavaram, Chennai - 060.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Elumalai (died)
1. The Special Tahsildar (LA)
MRL-Aromatic Scheme, Saidapet,
Chennai – 015.
2. The Advisor
Arochem.
3. Mani
S/o. Ganesan, No.3, Udaiyar Thottam, 3rd
Street, Madhavaram, Thiruvallur, Chennai -
060.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 1079 of 2025
__________
Page2 of 9
4. Kumar
S/o. Ganesan, No.1/320, Athikulamedu Periya
Mathur, Mathur, Manali, Chennai - 068.
5. Sundar
S/o. Ganesan, No.2/257, Muthu Nagar Teachers
Colony, Periya Matur, Manali, Chennai - 068.
6. Sasikala
D/o. Ganesan, W/o. Mahendiran, No.112,
Chenji Post, Ramankoil, Senji, Thiruvallur -
203.
7. Josephin
W/o. Murugesan, Res. at No.3, 6th Street,
Seetharam Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 118.
8. M. Rajan
S/o. Murugesan, Res. at No.3, 6th Street,
Seetharam Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 118.
9. M. Angel Mary
d/o Murugesan, W/o. Anthoni Raj, Res. at No.3,
6th Street, Seetharam Nagar, Kodungaiyur,
Chennai - 118.
10.Sophiya
D/o. Murugesan, Res. at No.3, 6th Street,
Seetharam Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 118.
11.Ranal
S/o. Murugesan, Res. at No.3, 6th Street,
Seetharam Nagar, Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 118.
12.Nirmala
W/o. thanikachalam, Res. at No.2/21,
Govindasamy Street, Ashwarya Nagar,
Selavayal, Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 118.
13.Prasanna
D/o. Thanikachalam, Res. at No.2/21,
Govindasamy Street, Ashwarya Nagar,
Selavayal, Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 118.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 1079 of 2025
__________
Page3 of 9
14.Rajesh Prabhu
S/o. Thanikachalam, Res. at No.2/21,
Govindasamy Street, Ashwarya Nagar,
Selavayal, Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 118.
15.Lavinna
D/o. Thanikachalam, Res. at No.2/21,
Govindasamy Street, Ashwarya Nagar,
Selavayal, Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 118.
16.Shobana
D/o. Thanikachalam, Res. at No.2/21,
Govindasamy Street, Ashwarya Nagar,
Selavayal, Kodungaiyur, Chennai - 118.
17.Sumathi
W/o. Sarangan, Res. at No.4, Udaiyar Garden,
3rd Street, Madhavaram, Chennai - 060.
18.Jagan
S/o. Sarangan, Res. at No.4, Udaiyar Garden,
3rd Street, Madhavaram, Chennai - 060.
19.Salina
D/o. Sarangan, W/o. Raji, No.26, Balaji Nagar,
Athipattu, Chennai 120.
20.Jagannathan
S/o. Munusamy, No.22, Thiruppur Kumaran
Street, Puzhal, Chennai - 066.
21.Thenmozhi
D/o. Munusamy, No.1/260, Kullanur Bharathi
Nagar, Lakkiampatti, Dharmapur Collectorate,
Dharmapuri -705.
22.Suresh
S/o. Munusamy, Res at No.22, Thiruppur
Kumaran Street, Puzhal, Chennai - 066.
23.Manikandan
S/o. Munusamy, Res at No.22, Thiruppur
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 1079 of 2025
__________
Page4 of 9
Kumaran Street, Puzhal, Chennai - 066.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to set aside the order dated 04.01.2024 passed in IA No.1 of 2023 in
LAOP No.1665 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court at
Ponneri.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.I.Sharukumar
for Mr.K.Elangovan
For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Muthuvel
Government Advocate (CS) For R1
Mr.S.S.Rajesh For R2
Mr.M.N.Kathir
for Mr.G.Pavendhan for R3 To R23
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order dated 04.01.2024 passed in IA No.1 of
2023 in LAOP No.1665 of 1998 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court
at Ponneri, the wife of the first respondent, Elumalai has preferred this revision.
2. The learned counsel submits that at the time of enquiry conducted by
the Special Tahsildar during the land acquisition proceedings, all the l egal heirs
of Ganesan, namely, brothers and sister of the said Elumalai appeare d and
submitted that they have no objection to give compensation to the said
Elumalai. On that basis, the Special Tahsildar recorded the state ment and gave
award to the said Elumalai and he has also received that compensation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 1079 of 2025
__________
Page5 of 9
Thereafter, he preferred LAOP No.1665 of 1998 for enhancement and pending
proceedings, the proposed claimant filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3
r/w. Section 151 of CPC to implead them as claimants in the said LAOP and
inspite of the objections raised on the side of the said Elumalai, the said
application was allowed by the trial judge by observing that on ver ification the
property belongs to Elumalai’s father Ganesan. He died leaving behi nd eight
sons and one daughter and all are omitted to be included. Therefore, he
permitted to include the proposed claimants as respondents 4 to 7 and allowed
the application. Aggrieved over the same, the revision is preferred by the wife
of Elumalai since he died pending proceedings.
3. The learned counsel submits that at the time of acquisition proceedings,
all the legal heirs of Ganesan, brothers and sister of Elumalai ha ve no objection
to give compensation to the said Elumalai and accordingly, an endorseme nt was
made by them which was also recorded by the Special Tahsildar a t the time of
passing of the award in the year of 1995. Thereafter for enhancement t he said
Elumalai took efforts. Now after long years the present claimant s have come
forward to cause interference in the process for which they are not entitled.
Since already they have given no objection to receive the compensat ion entirely
by the said Elumalai, he pray to set aside the order passed by the t rial judge in
IA No.1 of 2023.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 1079 of 2025
__________
Page6 of 9
4. The learned counsel appearing for the proposed claimants / respondents
submits that the property originally belongs to Ganesan which was under
acquisition by the Special Tahsildar and the said Ganesan died leavi ng behind
eights sons and one daughter. Admittedly, the said Elumalai is the elde r son
without knowing others knowledge, the compensation was attempted to be
grabbed by Elumalai. Therefore, having come to know about all the proceedings
now they filed the application to implead them as claimants w hich was rightly
observed by the court below.
5. Considering the land acquisition proceedings, it shows that the
property which was acquired ancestrally belongs to Ganesan and he had eight
sons and one daughter and admittedly Elumalai is the elder son who has
appeared before the Special Tahsildar for acquisition proceedings, wher ein it
was also recorded that the property is ancestral in nature. But the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the statement wherein it is
mentioned that the said Elumalai appeared for the enquiry and other legal heirs
also appeared and they endorsed that the compensation amount may be paid to
said Elumalai, which shows that already they submitted no objection for
receiving the award amount. Therefore, they are not entitled to cause
interference in other continuous proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 1079 of 2025
__________
Page7 of 9
6. The fact reveals that the property belongs to one Ganesan, who die d
leaving behind his eight sons and one daughter and Elumalai is the only el der
son of the family, but other legal heirs were not impleaded. Mere st atement
recorded by the Special Tahsildar alone is not sufficient to conclude that they
have given up their right. The notice was served only to Elumalai there is no
proof the notice was served to other legal heirs and there is no c oncrete proof
that the other legal heirs were also present on that day, as rightl y pointed out by
the learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the objections raise d on the
side of the revision petitioner is not sustainable. All parties are di rected to
cooperate for the proceedings and the trial judge is directed to di spose of LAOP
No.1665 of 1998 within a period of twelve weeks from the date of recei pt of a
copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
21-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MTL
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 1079 of 2025
__________
Page8 of 9
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Court at Ponneri.
2. The Special Tahsildar (LA),
MRL-Aromatic Scheme, Saidapet,
Chennai – 015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 1079 of 2025
__________
Page9 of 9
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
MTL
CRP No. 1079 of 2025
AND
CMP NO. 6147 OF 2025
21-04-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis