In a significant ruling on land acquisition for the expansion of Madurai Airport, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by over 300 residents of Chinna Udaippu village.
The Court held that the land acquisition, initiated in 2009 under the State law, was valid and that the petitioners were not entitled to claim rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Central land acquisition law of 2013.
The common order was delivered on February 27, 2026.
Read also:- Two Women Killed in Acid Attack: Allahabad High Court Modifies Life Imprisonment
Background of the Case
The petitioners, many of whom belong to the Scheduled Caste community, challenged eviction notices issued by the authorities for airport expansion. They argued that although compensation was paid, they were not provided rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The land in question-about 20 acres in Chinna Udaippu hamlet of Ayyanpappakudi village-was part of a larger 633-acre acquisition for upgrading Madurai Airport into an international airport. The acquisition process began in 2008–2009 under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.
While most landowners vacated after receiving compensation, the petitioners continued to remain in possession, demanding:
- Five cents of house site instead of two
- Two acres of agricultural land per family
- A government job for one family member
They also sought to declare certain provisions of the 1997 State Act as unconstitutional unless read along with the 2013 Central Act.
Read also:- Karnataka HC Makes Crowd Control SOP Binding Till New Law Is Enacted After Tragedy Concerns
Petitioners’ Arguments
Senior counsel appearing for the villagers argued that:
- After the 2013 Central Act came into force, all acquisitions must follow its rehabilitation and resettlement safeguards.
- Under Section 24 of the 2013 Act, they were entitled not just to enhanced compensation, but also full rehabilitation benefits.
- Since they belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, the State had a constitutional duty to provide alternative land and livelihood support.
It was also argued that eviction without such safeguards violated their right to property and livelihood under Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution.
State’s Stand
The State government countered that:
- The acquisition process was completed in 2009, well before the 2013 Central Act came into force.
- Compensation had already been paid-largely in line with the 2013 Act-on an ex gratia basis.
- Over 90% of the total acquired land had already been handed over to the Airport Authority of India.
- Only the petitioners’ portion remained due to continued resistance.
The government also informed the Court that, as a special measure, it had offered:
- Two cents of developed house site in nearby Perungudi village
- Construction of a house under the “Kalaignarin Kanavu Illam” scheme
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench examined the legal history closely. It noted that the acquisition proceedings were initiated and substantially completed in 2009 under the State Act.
Referring to Section 24 of the 2013 Act, the Court clarified:
“The entire gamut of Section 24 confers only entitlement of compensation under the New Act. They never discuss about the rehabilitation and resettlement entitlement.”
The Bench held that Section 24 does not automatically grant rehabilitation and resettlement benefits where acquisition was already completed under a previous law.
On the challenge to the State Act provisions, the Court observed that the Tamil Nadu Validation Act, 2019 had already been upheld by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the argument that the State law was unconstitutional “has no legs to stand.”
The Court also found that the lands acquired from the petitioners were primarily house sites, not agricultural lands. There was no material to show that their livelihood depended on farming.
It remarked that despite receiving compensation, the petitioners had continued in possession and obstructed the project for years.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Upholds Disability Pension for Air Force Veteran, Dismisses Union’s Plea
The Bench observed:
“Their continuous objection… establishes their clear intention to obstruct the project without any bona fides.”
The Court described the conduct as amounting to “unjust enrichment” and said the authorities were legally permitted under Section 4(3) of the 1997 Act to use necessary force to take possession.
The Decision
The High Court dismissed all three writ petitions.
It upheld:
- The validity of the acquisition under the 1997 State Act
- The eviction notices issued by authorities
- The government’s authority to take possession using force if necessary
The Court concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to claim rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the 2013 Central Act and that the eviction process could proceed in accordance with law.
Case Title: Malairajan & Others v. Government of Tamil Nadu & Others
Case No.: W.P.(MD) Nos. 27922, 28131 & 29208 of 2024
Decision Date: 27 February 2026
