(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 05.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8380 of 2026.)

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, CJ.

1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 5.3.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.8380 of 2026. The appellant sought to set aside land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978 (Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978). The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition primarily on the grounds of inordinate delay, laches and res judicata.

2.1. The background of the case is that the District Collector, Coimbatore, initiated proceedings for acquisition of lands measuring an extent of 2.86.0 hectares (comprised in S.F.Nos.189/1A, 190/1A, 191, 192/2 and 194/2) in Irugur Village, Palladam (now Sulur) Taluk, for providing free house sites to Adi Dravidars.

                     2.2. It is stated that notice under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 was issued on 13.02.1996 and published in the Coimbatore District Gazette. Notices for hearing were issued to the registered landholders, viz., Damodaran, Ramanujam, and Gopal. Valuation and award proceedings were completed on 15.03.1996 vide Na.Ka. No.385/95, determining total compensation of Rs.6,12,781/-.

                     2.3. On 18.12.2013, the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Coimbatore, issued a communication stating that 7.29 acres in these survey numbers belonged to Arulmigu Varadaraja Perumal Temple and directed registering authorities not to register transfers.

                     2.4. The appellant herein filed W.P.No.1942 of 2018 seeking a declaration that acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. By order dated 19.12.2023, a learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.No.1942 of 2018, holding that Central Act of 2013 does not apply to Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, with liberty to work out remedies in a manner known to law.

                     2.5. The appellant thereafter filed W.P.No.8380 of 2026 challenging the 1996 acquisition, which the learned Single Judge dismissed. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred this writ appeal.

3. Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, raised the following contentions:

                     (i) The lands belong to Arulmigu Sri Varadharaja Perumal Temple, but no notice under Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 was ever served on the temple or its trustees.

                     (ii) The appellant had no knowledge of the acquisition in 1996. Therefore, the doctrine of delay and laches ought not to be applied to oust a valid property claim.

                     (iii) While dismissing W.P.No.1942 of 2018 on 19.12.2023, the learned Single Judge granted liberty to work out remedies in a manner known to law and, therefore, res judicata would not apply.

                     (iv) Section 4(2) of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978 mandates notice to the owner or person interested. Non-issuance of notice to the temple vitiates the entire acquisition.

                     (v) Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh((2022) 7 SCC 508), to argue that the State cannot shirk its duty or rely on delay to defeat constitutional rights under Article 300-A.

5. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 reiterated the reasons that weighed with the learned Single Judge and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

6. The revenue records at the time of acquisition in 1996 showed the lands were registered in the names of private individuals (Damodaran, Ramanujam and Gopal), to whom statutory notices were issued. The Special Tahsildar verified revenue records as required under Rule 5(i) of the Rules framed under Act 31 of 1978. The acquisition authority had no record or knowledge of any unrecorded temple title in 1996. A claim made decades later based on internal departmental communications of the HR & CE Department from 2013 cannot invalidate statutory notices issued to recorded landholders in 1996.

7. The acquisition notifications were issued and the award was passed in February–March 1996. The second writ petition challenging these proceedings was filed 30 years later, in 2026. Land acquisition proceedings cannot be reopened decades after completion and implementation. The plea of lack of knowledge, as claimed by the appellant/temple, for over three decades in respect of the lands said to be in its possession is unsustainable.

8. The first writ petition, viz., W.P.No.1942 of 2018, was filed in respect of the same property and acquisition proceedings, which the learned Single Judge dismissed on 19.12.2023. While liberty was given to work out remedies in accordance with law, that liberty does not allow filing of another writ petition on grounds that were already available when the first writ petition was filed. The core challenge to the acquisition stood concluded by the dismissal of the first writ petition.

9. The reliance placed on Sukh Dutt Ratra (supra) is misplaced. In Sukh Dutt Ratra (supra), the State had taken over private lands for road construction without initiating any land acquisition proceedings or paying compensation, while selectively compensating neighbouring owners who approached the Court. In the case at hand, the State followed due process under Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1978, published Gazette notifications, issued notices to patta holders, passed a formal award in 1996 and paid the compensation. The present case involves no forcible dispossession without authority of law. Hence, the decision in Sukh Dutt Ratra (supra) is distinguishable on facts.

10. It is brought to the notice of this Court that civil litigation regarding title was instituted before the competent Civil Court and was dismissed, against which an appeal is currently pending. The question of title between the temple and private persons involves complex factual inquiries that cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since civil proceedings were already initiated and an appeal against dismissal is pending, the appellant is at liberty to work out its remedies in the pending civil appeal.

11. For the reasons afore-cited, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

12. As a sequel, the writ appeal is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is affirmed. The appellant is at liberty to pursue its remedies in the pending civil appeal before the competent forum in accordance with law. We make it clear that this order or any observations made herein, shall not have any bearing on or influence the outcome of the civil proceedings, which shall be decided independently on its own merits.

There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected interim application stands closed.