Landowners challenged acquisition of their land for a highway project, seeking realignment to exclude their land. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's dismissal, holding that road alignment is an expert domain and courts cannot interfere, though interest on belated compensation deposit is permissible.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.A.No.2344 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.06.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.No.2344 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
1.P.Venkataraman (Deceased)
2.V.Suresh
5.V.Prasanna
... Appellants
[A2 to A5 brought into record as LRs of the deceased A1, vide order dated 26.08.2021 made in CMP.No.13306/2021in WA.No.2344/2013]
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 8
W.A.No.2344 of 2013
Tamil Nadu Highways Department, Chennai – 600 016.
4.The Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
5.The Special Deputy Tahsildar, (Land Acquisition), Tamil Nadu Urban Development Scheme III, Chennai at Poonamallee.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 09.11.2012 passed in W.P.No.10065 of 2010 and pass such further or other orders as this High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
For Appellants : Mr.G.K.R.Pandiyan For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader
J U D G M E N T
[Judgment was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. ]
The writ appeal has been instituted against the order dated 09.11.2012
passed in W.P.No.10065 of 2010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 8
W.A.No.2344 of 2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 8
W.A.No.2344 of 2013
schemes are periodically updated in tune with the change in the technical advancement. Hence, High Court cannot interfere with reference to the road project, which was already determined by the competent authorities. Accordingly, the writ petition was rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 8
W.A.No.2344 of 2013
prepared at given point of time. Further, the storm water flow is to be discharged via culverts to avoid inundation and ensure free flow of vehicular traffic, further avoid damages to road. Since the Topography of the area near petitioner's land requires culvert for cross drainage, it is expert domain to decide a construction of culvert based on the low lying terrain. Thus, the construction of culvert cannot be avoided to protect the roads and ensure proper vehicular movements.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 8
W.A.No.2344 of 2013
provisions of the Act. The appellants have got a right to the claim interest for
the belated deposit of compensation amount by the respondents. However, the claim of the 1st appellant for realignment of road project cannot be considered by this Court as rightly rejected by the Writ Court.
[S.M.S., J.] [C.K., J.] 04.06.2024
Jeni Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 8
W.A.No.2344 of 2013
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 8
W.A.No.2344 of 2013
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
Jeni
W.A.No.2344 of 2013
04.06.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court in judicial review can direct realignment of a road project determined by expert authorities.
P.Venkataraman (Deceased)
V.Suresh
V.Kausalya
V.Magesh
V.Prasanna
The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Highways and Minor Ports (HW2) Department
S.M.Subramaniam
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
