Allowed

T. Ramamoorthy (Died), v. Union of India

Madras HC15 Sept 2025WP/18750/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging rejection of claims for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act for land acquired for NH-68. The Court held that while the Supreme Court clarified that Section 23(1A) additional market value is not applicable, petitioners are entitled to solatium under Section 23(2) and interest under Section 28. The impugned orders were set aside, and respondents were directed to pa

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed. Respondents directed to pay solatium at 30% and applicable interest within eight weeks of receipt of order.

T. Ramamoorthy (Died), Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.Nos.18750 of 2018 and etc batch

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.Nos.18750, 18751, 22852, 28333, 28342, 28346, 28353, 28358, 29510, 31263 of 2018 and 14252 of 2019 and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.26697, 33041, 33051, 33054, 33061, 33066, 34480 and 36449 of 2018

¶8

W.P.No.18750 of 2018

¶9

T.Ramamoorthy (Died)

¶10

1.Chandra

¶11

2.Chithammal

¶12

3.Revathi

¶13

4.Andal

¶14

5.Arul Mozhi

¶15

6.Parkavi

¶16

7.R.Sheshathri (Petitioners 1 to 7 are impleaded as per order dated 15.09.2025 in W.M.P.No.26277 of 2025 in W.P.No.18750 of 2018) .... Petitioners Vs

¶17

1.Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhavan, 1, Parliamentary Street, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶18

Page 1 of 9

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P.Nos.18750 of 2018 and etc batch

¶21

2.The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (LA) (NH.68) Salem District In-charge Villupuram, Villpuram District.

¶22

3.The Project Director, N.H.A.I. NH.68, 221, Sri Nagar Colony, Narasothipatty, Salem, Salem Town & Taluk.

¶23

4.The Regional Officer, N.H.A.I, Shri Tower, III Floor, D.P.34 (SP) Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶24

Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records/proceedings of the 3^rd respondent in his Letter NHAI/PIU-SLM/ NH.68/2017-837 Dated 05.09.2017 and consequential order of the 2^nd respondent in his Memo-ROC 239/2009 (N.H.68) dated 26.09.2017 respectively and quash the same and to direct the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to pay the additional market value under Sec. 23(1) (a), solatium under Sec. 23(2) and interest under Sec.28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the petitioner herein (about Rs. 2001653/-) together with accrued interest, etc. within a reasonable period that may be stipulated by this Honble High Court.

¶25

Page 2 of 9

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.Nos.18750 of 2018 and etc batch

¶28

In W.P.Nos.18750, 18751 & 22852 of 2018

¶29

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Singaravelu for Mr.V.Raghupathi For R1 : Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar SCGSC For R2 : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar Government Advocate For R3 & R4 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan

¶30

In W.P.Nos.28333, 28342 & 28346 of 2018

¶31

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Singaravelu for Mr.V.Raghupathi For R1 : Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar SGCSC For R2 : Mr.S.Rajesh Government Advocate For R3 & R4 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan

¶32

In W.P.Nos.28353 & 28358 of 2018

¶33

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Singaravelu for Mr.V.Raghupathi For R1 : Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar SGCSC For R2 : Mr.G.Velu Additional Government Pleader For R3 & R4 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan

¶34

In W.P.Nos.29510 & 31263 of 2018

¶35

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Singaravelu for Mr.V.Raghupathi For R1 : Mr.B.Sudhir Kumar SGCSC

¶36

Page 3 of 9

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

W.P.Nos.18750 of 2018 and etc batch

¶39

For R2 : Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader For R3 & R4 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan

¶40

In W.P.No.14252 of 2019

¶41

For Petitioners : Mr.B.Singaravelu for Mr.V.Raghupathi For R1, R2 & R4 : Mr.N.Naveen Kumar Government Advocate For R3 & R4 : Mr.Su.Srinivasan

¶42

COMMON ORDER

¶43

These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order

¶44

passed by the third respondent, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioners under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶45

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and

¶46

perused the materials available on record.

¶47

3. The petitioners' respective lands were acquired for the

¶48

formation of NH-68 road, which runs between Salem and Ulundurpet, under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. Pursuant to

¶49

Page 4 of 9

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.Nos.18750 of 2018 and etc batch

¶52

the acquisition, an award was passed on 18.07.2009. However, the petitioners were not paid the additional market value at the rate of 12%, solatium at the the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 15%. Consequently, some of the land owners challenged the validity of Section 3J of the National Highways Act, as amended by Central Act 16 of 1967, before various High Courts. This Court, while upholding other provisions of the Act, declared Section 3J of the National Highways Act as unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the light of the said decision, the petitioners submitted representations seeking payment of additional market value, solatium and interest. However, the said representations were rejected by the third respondent.

¶53

4. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that, insofar as the claim for interest is concerned, the petitioners are not entitled to interest from the date of the award. According to him, the petitioners are entitled to interest only from the date of filing of the writ petitions. He further submitted that this issue had already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Punjab Page 5 of 9

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

W.P.Nos.18750 of 2018 and etc batch

¶56

and Haryana High Court, wherein it was held that the claimants are not entitled to interest for the period of delay in approaching the Court and that interest shall be payable only from the date of the award by the competent authority till the date of filing of the writ petitions. He also submitted that this issue has already been considered by this Court, which has consistently held that the interest is payable only from the date of award. Therefore, the submissions made by the petitioners cannot be countenanced.

¶57

5. The issues raised herein have already been settled by the

¶58

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Tarseem Singh and others reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304, wherein, it was held that all the land owners are entitled to additional market value under Section 23(1A), solatium under Section 23(2) and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Based on the said Judgment, several writ petitions were allowed by this Court granting similar relief. However, subsequently, the National Highways Authorities of India filed a clarification petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the very same case. The Hon'ble Supreme Page 6 of 9

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

W.P.Nos.18750 of 2018 and etc batch

¶61

Court of India clarified that the Judgment dated 19.09.2019 in Paragraph No.41, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India included Section 23(1A) as well, when Section 23(1A) was not present before any authority or the Court. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ordered deletion of the expression “(1A)” by an order dated 30.07.2021. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief under Section 23(1A). However, the petitioners are entitled to the benefits under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, along with interest as applicable in accordance with law.

¶62

6. In view of the above, the order passed by the third respondent cannot be sustained insofar as it relates to the rejection of the petitioners' claim. Accordingly, the order passed by the third respondent is hereby set aside with respect to the denial of solatium under Section 23(2) and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The second and third respondents are directed to pay solatium at the rate of 30% for the land acquired from the respective petitioners, together with the applicable interest, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶63

Page 7 of 9

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

W.P.Nos.18750 of 2018 and etc batch

¶66

7. In the result, these Writ Petitions are allowed.

¶67

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

¶68

15.09.2025 (2/2)

¶69

Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Lpp To 1.The Secretary to Government, Union of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhavan, 1, Parliamentary Street, New Delhi – 110 001. 2.The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (LA) (NH.68) Salem District In-charge Villupuram, Villpuram District. 3.The Project Director, N.H.A.I. NH.68, 221, Sri Nagar Colony, Narasothipatty, Salem, Salem Town & Taluk. 4.The Regional Officer, N.H.A.I, Shri Tower, III Floor, D.P.34 (SP) Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Page 8 of 9

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

W.P.Nos.18750 of 2018 and etc batch

¶72

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶73

Lpp

¶74

W.P.Nos.18750, 18751, 22852, 28333, 28342, 28346, 28353, 28358, 29510, 31263 of 2018 and 14252 of 2019 (2/2)

¶75

15.09.2025

¶76

Page 9 of 9

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

T. Ramamoorthy (Died), v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Ramamoorthy (Died), v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Subramanian @ Ponnimani Vs The Revenue Divisional officer

Mrs.G.Nagaveni, Vs State rep. by its Secretary

M.Yashodha Bai, Vs State rep. by its Secretary

Dr.Navin Nayan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Dr.Navin Nayan Vs the State of Tamilnadu

P.R.Prithviraj Vs Union of India