Landowner challenged refusal to redetermine compensation for mango, sapotta, fig and coconut trees acquired for an expressway, relying on agriculture and horticulture department age-assessment reports. The court declined to reopen the award, holding the petitioner's remedy is an appeal before the District Collector.
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.
WP No. 21106 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-04-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
WP No. 21106 of 2024 AND WMP NO. 23038 OF 2024,WMP NO. 23037 OF 2024
Petitioner(s)
Vs
2.The District Collector, Ranipet District, Ranipet
3.The Competent Authority And Special District Revenue Office(LA), National Highways, Bangalorechennai Expressway, Vellore -632 009.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Arokonam, Ranipet District.
Respondent(s)
WP No. 21106 of 2024
PRAYER
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the isusue of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the Impugned order issued by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka. No. A2/698/2022 dated 28.06.2024 and
the subsequent impugned order issued by the 4th respondent in Na.Ka. No. Aa1/1858/2024 dated 09.07.2024 and to QUASH the
same and consequently directing the respondents to pass supplementary Award in respect of missing out trees and actual extent of Well measuring to an extent of 1,480 sq.ft and 100 feet bore well with motor, based on the re-assessment report submitted by the Department of Agriculture, Department of Horticulture as well as the forest Department, at the initiation of 2nd and 3rd respondents,along with interest in delay in payment, within a time frame to be fixed by this Honble Court
For Petitioner(s): S.Nedunchezhiyan For M/s. S.R. Sumathy For Respondent(s): R1 Dt 13/08/2024 Mr.P.Sathish, Addl. Govt. Pleader Takes Notice For R2 To R4
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the
WP No. 21106 of 2024
impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 28.06.2024 and the order passed by the 4th respondent dated 09.07.2024 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pass supplementary award in respect of the left out trees and the well and also the bore well based on the reassessment report submitted by the Department of Agriculture and Department of Horticulture and the Forest Department.
Heard Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner and Mrs.S.R.Sumathy learned Standing Counsel for R1.
2.The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.30712 of 2023 and this writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 30.11.2023 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is redressed and supplementary award was also passed. The petitioner can receive the
WP No. 21106 of 2024
award amount, though he received the original award amount.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider and pass Award for the missing number of Sappota Trees and also Teak wood trees etc. If they have already calculated and passed the Award, the same shall be paid to the petitioner and the petitioner shall receive the same. If the petitioner has any grievance with the quantum, he can work out his remedy in the manner known to law.
3.The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the 1st respondent has taken a stand that the compensation claimed by the petitioner for the trees was already fixed and the total compensation is to the tune of Rs.88,90,766/- which includes 100% solatium. For proper appreciation, para 34 in the counter is extracted hereunder:
34.In reply to averments made in para 14 of the affidavit, it is humbly submitted that previously the petitioner had filed WP.30712 of 2023 before this Hon'ble Court praying to reassess the compensation by including the missing number of Sapota trees, Mango trees, Fig trees and Teakwood Trees, Structures, Fencing and also by rectifying the errors in calculation of the age and value of the trees which includes the Coconut trees and to provide appropriate compensation with interest to the petitioner. Hon'ble High Court vide its Order dated 30.11.2023 disposed the petition
WP No. 21106 of 2024
directing the Respondents to pass the Award for missing no.of trees and if the award has already been passed, the
petitioner shall receive the compensation for the same. It is humbly submitted that the Awards for various trees (190-Coconut, 179-Teakwood, 52-Eucalyptus, 135Sapotta, 13-Mango, 5-Fig, 1-Neem, 1-Kodukapuli,1-Nuna) in acquired lands have already been passed by the 3rd respondent. The details of compensation awarded for trees are as hereunder;
| Sy.N o. |
Name of the landowner |
Details of Trees |
No.of trees | Total compensation paid to the petitioner including 100% solatium (in Rs.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coconut | 42 | 6,72,000 | ||
| 139/ 2 |
Thangasamy S/oMaruthai |
Eucalyptus | 4 | 7,144 |
| . Udayar |
Teakwood | 40 | 90,738 | |
| Sapotta | 15 | 4,78,800 | ||
| Athi | 3 | 66,150 |
| Sy.No . |
Name of the landowner |
Details of Trees |
No.of trees | Total compensation paid to the petitioner including 100% solatium (in Rs.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coconut | 84 | 13,44,000 | ||
| Eucalyptus | 11 | 22,232 |
WP No. 21106 of 2024
| Sy.No | Name of the | Details of | No.of trees | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | landowner | Trees | compensation paid to the petitioner including 100% solatium (in Rs.) |
|
| Neem | 1 | 42 | ||
| 141/3 | Thangasamy |
Mango | 10 | 4,79,3 20 |
| B2 | S/o.Maruthai Udayar |
Teakwood | 61 | 2,02,424 |
| Teakwood | 9 | 35,532 | ||
| Mango | 3 | 1,89,000 | ||
| Sapotta | 1 | 33,600 | ||
| Fig | 2 | 44,100 | ||
| Sapotta | 98 | 31,28,160 | ||
| Coconut | 24 | 4,08,000 | ||
| Eucalyptus | 26 | 15,516 | ||
| Kodukapuli | 1 | 380 | ||
| Nuna | 1 | 352 | ||
| Teakwood | 26 | 89,254 | ||
| 141/4 | Thangasamy | Sapotta | 21 | 7,05,600 |
| S/o.Maruthai |
Coconut | 32 | 6,08,000 | |
| Udyayar | Eucalyptus | 11 | 5,180 | |
| Teakwood | 43 | 1,05,242 | ||
| Coconut | 8 | 1,60,000 | ||
| 141/6 | ||||
| D | Thangasamy S/o.Maruthai |
Total Comp trees inclu |
ensation for ding 100% |
88,90,766 |
| Udyayar | Solatium 179-Teakwoo |
(190-Coconut, d, 52- |
||
| 141/7 | Eucalyptus, | 135-Sapotta, | ||
| B | Thangasamy S/o.Maruthai Udyayar |
13-Mango, 5 1-Kodukapuli |
-Fig, 1-Neem, , 1-Nuna) |
WP No. 21106 of 2024
4.If the compensation for the trees has already
been determined, this Court made it clear even in the previous order that the petitioner must only workout the remedy in the manner known to law.
5.Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Senior Counsel seeks for
sometime to take instructions on the stand taken by the 1st respondent at paragraph 34 of the affidavit.
6.Post this writ petition on 21.02.2025.
21.02.2025 and the following order came to be passed by this Court :-
Pursuant to the earlier order passed on 14.02.2025, the matter was listed for hearing today.
2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that apart from the original award dated 20.12.2017, there are four supplementary awards passed. The first supplementary award relates to the award of compensation for structures and open well. The second supplementary award relates to the award of compensation for teakwood. The third supplementary award relates to the compensation for sapotta trees, fig, mango trees not covered in the
WP No. 21106 of 2024
original award and supplementary award No.4 relates to the sapotta, mango, fig trees which were left out to be counted.
3.In order to assess the correct age of the trees and for reassessment of the value of the trees, inspection was conducted by the agricultural, horticulture and forest department and they have submitted reports dated 12.06.2023, 23.06.2023 and 06.10.2023. These reports have not been taken into consideration and the impugned order proceeds as if the awards have already been passed based on the assessment reports and hence there is no ground for amendment or rectification of the award. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is absolutely no whisper about the orders that were passed by the District Collector followed by the reports that were submitted by the Department and all this does not form part of the original award either by way of an amendment or by way of a modification of the original award. To substantiate these submissions, additional typed set of papers has also been filed toda y along with relevant documents.
WP No. 21106 of 2024
24.03.2025 and the following order was passed by this Court :-
Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court on 21.02.2025, the National Highways Authority of India has filed a reply. In the reply, NHAI has taken a stand that supplementary awards have been passed, wherein the grievance expressed by the petitioner have been taken into account and the compensation amount has also been fixed. Therefore, it is contended that if at all the petitioner has any grievance, they can only agitate by way of filing an appeal before the District Collector under 3G(5) of the National Highways Act.
2. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that except for the original award, the copy of the supplementary awards have not been served to the petitioner and the petitioner is not aware as to the reasons given in the supplementary awards, while fixing the compensation. In other words, it is contended that the petitioner is not aware as to whether the grounds raised by the petitioner were considered while passing the supplementary awards.
3.This Court also wants to scrutinize the supplementary awards passed in this case. Hence, the Competent Authority who is represented by the learned Additional Government Pleader shall furnish the supplementary awards passed in this case by way of typed set of papers. A copy of the same shall be served on the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of NHAI. Post
WP No. 21106 of 2024
this writ petition under the same caption 'part heard cases' on 03.04.2025.
WP No. 21106 of 2024
12.06.2023, the age of the coconut trees was assessed as more than 20 years. Out of the 190 trees, 10 trees were found not tobe yielding coconuts and the balance 180 trees were yeilding coconuts.
WP No. 21106 of 2024
WP No. 21106 of 2024
again approaching the competent authority to redetermine the compensation and the said redetermination cannot be made since the 3rd respondent has become functus officio .
compass. The grievance of the petitioner is that the age of the mango trees, sappota trees, fig trees and coconut trees was not properly taken into consideration and a lesser compensation has been fixed. The age of the trees has been determined by the report submitted by the Joint Director of Agriculture and the Assistant Director of Horticulture Department and inspite of the same, the same has not been taken into consideration and a supplementary award has not been passed. To support this submission, the learned Senior counsel relied upon the supplementary award dated 07.11.2023 wherein the age of the trees was properly determined and compensation was fixed.
WP No. 21106 of 2024
was directed to be paid to the petitioner and if the petitioner has any grievance with the quantum, he was directed to be work out his remedy in the manner known to law.
respect to the compensation that was fixed for the left out trees through a supplementary award dated 07.11.2023. The grievance of the petitioner now confines only to the other trees and according to the petitioner, the age of those trees was not properly determined while passing the award.
WP No. 21106 of 2024
regarding the error in the calculation of the age and the value of the trees. On considering the same, the learned Single Judge of this Court had only issued a direction for passing an award for the trees that were missed out. Insofar as the other grievance expressed by the petitioner, this Court directed the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.
WP No. 21106 of 2024
placed before the District Collector, who can take that into consideration while deciding the issue regarding enhancement of compensation sought for by the petitioner. The award has been passed in the year 2017 itself and at this length of time, this Court is not inclined to send the matter back to the competent authority, to once again determine the compensation.
for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court. It is left open to the petitioner to receive the compensation that has already been determined and deposited. The petitioner shall file an appeal before the 2nd respondent viz. The District Collector, Ranipet, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While filing the appeal, the petitioner can
raise all the grounds raised in the present writ petition with respect to the age of the trees as was determined by the Joint Director of Agriculture and Assistant Director of Horticulture Department. The same will be taken into consideration by the District Collector while passing the final order under Section 3(G) (5) of the National Highways
Act. Accordingly, the grievance expressed by the petitioner can be redressed before the District Collector.
WP No. 21106 of 2024
The District Collector on receipt of the same, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and the National Highways Authority of India, shall pass final orders within a period of three months thereafter.
08-04-2025
rka
Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No
WP No. 21106 of 2024
To
1.The Project Officer Nhai Bangalroe-chennai Expressway, Sy.No. 13,14th Km,Naga Sandra, Bengalurutumkur Road(nh4), Bengaluru560 073.
2.The District Collector, Ranipet District, Ranipet
3.The Competent Authority And Special District Revenue Office(la), National Highways, Bangalorechennai Expressway, Vellore -632 009.
4.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Arokonam, Ranipet District.
WP No. 21106 of 2024
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. rka
WP No. 21106 of 2024 WMP NO. 23038 OF 2024,WMP NO. 23037 OF 2024
08-04-2025
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the competent authority could be directed to redetermine tree compensation based on reassessed age reports despite an earlier writ order leaving the petitioner to work out remedies.
What remedy is available to a landowner aggrieved by compensation fixed in a land acquisition award under the National Highways Act.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Thangasami S/o. Maruthai Udaiyar
The Project Officer NHAI Bangalore-Chennai Expressway
The District Collector, Ranipet District
The Competent Authority And Special District Revenue Office (LA), National Highways
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Arokonam
N. Anand Venkatesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
