S. Gurumoorthy Vs the District Collector

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1 st and 2 nd respondents herein to settle the compensation amount mutually agreed under Section Page 1 of 8

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.No.39862 of 2025 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, and as found in the statement of declaration obtained from the petitioner pertaining to the acquisition of our lands to an extent of 4694 Sq.meters in S.F.No.169/1B3 and 1818 Sq.metres in S.F.No.174/1 of P.Vadugapalayam Village, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District, in respect of formation of a link road from Km 2/700 of Palladam-Cochin-Frontier road (SH 163) to Km 2/200 of Palladam-Dharapuram Road (SH 174A) in Palladam Taluk, Tirupur District.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.Suthrith Parthasarathy

¶23

For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.M.Suresh Kumar,

¶24

Additional Advocate General Assisted by, Mr.P.Sathish, Additional Government Pleader

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This writ petition has been filed to direct the 1 st and 2 nd respondents

¶27

herein to settle the compensation amount mutually agreed under Section

¶28

19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, and as found in the statement of declaration obtained from the petitioner pertaining to the acquisition of petitioners’ lands to an extent of 4694 Sq.meters in S.F.No.169/1B3 and 1818 Sq.metres in S.F.No.174/1 of P.Vadugapalayam

¶29

Village, Palladam Taluk, Tiruppur District, in respect of formation of a link road from Km 2/700 of Palladam-Cochin-Frontier road (SH 163) to Km 2/200 of Palladam-Dharapuram Road (SH 174A) in Palladam Taluk,

¶30

Tirupur District.

¶31

Page 2 of 8

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.39862 of 2025

¶34

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the joint owners of the lands situated in S.Nos.169/1B3 and 174/1 to an extent of 1.66 hectares and 1.89 hectares. Whereby, the second respondent intend to acquire 6512 sq.mts of the aforesaid land for the formation of a link road from Dharapuram Road (SH 174A). Thereafter, a mutually agreed compensation was arrived at by the respondents and the petitioners have also accepted the same. However, the said compensation was not yet paid to the petitioners. Under these circumstances, without considering the aforesaid settlement, now, the second respondent had issued a fresh notice dated 25.09.2025 to the petitioners and other neighbouring land owners to reassess the compensation, which results in a substantial reduction of compensation. Hence, the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition.

¶35

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that while determining the compensation to the similarly placed persons, the respondents have applied the multiplier of 2.75% + 25%, whereas for the petitioners herein, the respondents have determined the compensation by applying the multiplier of 2.25% without 25%. In support of such contention, the learned counsel referred to the law laid down by the Page 3 of 8

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.No.39862 of 2025

¶38

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Narendra and others Vs. State of

¶39

U.P. And others reported in (2017) 9 SCC 426 . If the said law is applied in the present case, nobody is deprived of equal rights, otherwise it will amounts to discrimination against the petitioners. Thus, by averring so, the learned counsel prays for re-determination of compensation, on par with the similarly placed persons.

¶40

4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would fairly admitted that in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Narendra and others (cited

¶41

supra) , the petitioners are entitled for re-determination of compensation, as that was ordered to the similarly placed persons and therefore, submits that any order passed by this Court in that regard would be complied with.

¶42

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶43

6. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for redetermination of compensation by applying the multiplier of 2.75% + 25%, as they are entitled, as per law. When the said multiplier of 2.75% Page 4 of 8

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.No.39862 of 2025 along with 25% is applied for similarly placed persons, the respondents

¶46

have determined the compensation to the petitioners by applying the multiplier of 2.25%, that too, without adding 25%, which clearly amounts to discrimination, as law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Narendra and others (cited supra) . In this connection, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant para from the said decision, which is extracted hereunder:-

¶47

“In order to ensure that the landowners are given proper compensation, the Act provides for “fair compensation”. Once such a fair compensation is determined judicially, all landowners, whose land was taken away by the same notification should become the beneficiary thereof. Not only it is an aspect of good governance, failing to do so would also amount to discrimination by giving different treatment to the persons though identically situated. On technical grounds, like the one adopted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, this fair treatment cannot be denied to them.”

¶48

7. A reading of the above decision makes it clear that, in the event

¶49

of determining the compensation, the respondents have to apply the same

¶50

yardstick for all the land owners of the State, either, it is by virtue of acquisition or they are going for private negotiation by virtue of the sale deed. Therefore, the petitioners are required to be considered that, they

¶51

Page 5 of 8

¶52

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

¶53

W.P.No.39862 of 2025 are also similarly placed persons and the compensation has to be redetermined by applying the multiplier of 2.75% + 25%.

¶54

8. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to redetermine the compensation payable to the petitioner by applying the multiplier of 2.75% + 25%, by taking into consideration of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Narendra and others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2017) 9 SCC 426 . It is also made clear that the said law would apply not only for acquiring the lands by virtue of issuing notification, but also for the private acquisition.

¶55

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.

¶56

2 0.11.2025

¶57

vm Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking order

¶58

Page 6 of 8

¶59

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

¶60

W.P.No.39862 of 2025

¶61

To