R.Krishnaswamy Vs Ravi — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

R.Krishnaswamy Vs Ravi — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition closed; competent authorities / RDO directed to redetermine the compensation payable to the petitioner under the new Act and disburse the same within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent (Contempt Authority / Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition for National Highways, Kulithalai, Karur District) is liable to be punished for disobedience of this Court's order dated 12.08.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.18363 of 2022 directing credit of the land-acquisition award amount to the petitioner's bank account upon execution of an indemnity bond. +1 more

Court's answer

With the aforesaid direction, the contempt petition is closed (no punitive order is recorded in the text).

Ratio / Principle

In view of the recent directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Petition (Civil) No.2528 of 2025 (National Highways Authority of India v. Tarsem Singh and others), the respondents may have to redetermine the compensation payable to the petitioner under the new Act.

Key takeaways

The competent authorities / RDO are directed to redetermine the compensation payable to the petitioner and disburse the same within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.ratio¶37
The court records as a factual finding that the award amount was disbursed only after the contempt petition was filed.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition (Cont. P(MD)No.756 of 2024) under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — alleged disobedience of order dated 12.08.2022 in W.P.(MD)No.18363 of 2022 directing credit of land-acquisition award amount (Rs.83,000/-) to the petitioner's bank account upon execution of an indemnity bond — award amount disbursed only after the contempt petition was filed — petitioner's land (1971 sq.m in S.No.347/6A, Rajendram Village) acquired in 2008 for widening of NH67 — applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's recent directions in Review Petition (Civil) No.2528 of 2025 (National Highways Authority of India v. Tarsem Singh and others) on 'interest', 'solatium' and 'interest on solatium' for landowners — Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (G.R. Swaminathan, J.) directs the competent authorities / RDO to redetermine the compensation payable to the petitioner under the new Act and disburse the same within 12 weeks — contempt petition closed.

Cont. P(MD)No.756 of 2024

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 26.03.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

Cont. P(MD)No.756 of 2024 in W.P.(MD)No.18363 of 2022

R.Krishnaswamy ... Petitioner

Vs.

Ravi The Contempt Authority / Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition for National Highways, Kulithalai, Karur District. ... Respondent

Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, to punish the respondent for disobedience of the order of this Court made in W.P.(MD)No.18363 of 2022, dated 12.08.2022.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Suresh Kumar

For Respondent : Mr.C.Venkatesh Kumar Special Government Pleader

1/5

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

Cont. P(MD)No.756 of 2024

ORDER

Even though acquisition was made in 2008 itself and the award was also passed, the amount was not credited. Hence, W.P.(MD)No. 18363 of 2020 was filed. The writ petition was allowed by me in the following terms:-

“2. The writ petitioner is a senior citizen and also advocate by profession. The petition mentioned lands originally belonged to late Shri.R.T.Varada Iyengar. The petitioner is his grandson. Shri.R.T.Varada Iyengar had two sons namely Shri.V.Ramanujam Iyengar and Shri.V.Jaganatha Iyengar. The petitioner is the son of Shri.V.Ramanujam Iyengar. The petitioner's father passed away on 10.07.1978. The petitioner was born with two brothers and two sisters. The petitioner's mother as well as the elder brother are no more. While so, the extent of 1971 sq.meters in Survey No.347/6A in Rajendram Village was acquired for widening of NH67. The acquisition proceedings concluded in the year 2008 itself. A sum of Rs.83,000/- appear to have been awarded. The said amount has not been disbursed till date. The petitioner is willing to execute an indemnity bond.

I am more than satisfied that no rival claim or objection will be raised. There cannot be any doubt that even if a family partition takes place, the amount in question can be adjusted against the writ petitioner's share. The petitioner is having SB account in Karur Vysya Bank at its Kulithalai Branch. The account number is 1150155000003994 & IFSC No.KVBL0001150.

In this view of the matter, the first respondent is directed to

2/5

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

Cont. P(MD)No.756 of 2024

credit the award amount in the aforementioned bank account immediately after the writ petitioner or his authorised representatives executes an indemnity bond to the first respondent.

The Writ Petition is allowed.”

Only after this contempt petition was filed, the award amount was disbursed.

2.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held very recently in Review Petition (Civil) No.2528 of 2025 (National Highways Authority of

India Vs. Tarsem Singh and others):-

“14. Considering the facts and circumstances explained in the instant proceedings along with the various submissions placed on record and with a view to balancing the equities regarding delay and the entitlements of the landowners, we issue the following directions:

(i) All landowners whose claims re: the quantum and/or components of compensation for their lands acquired under the NH Act were alive on or after 28.03.2008, i.e., they were pending before one of the prescribed fora, shall be entitled to seek addition of ‘interest’, ‘solatium’, and ‘interest on the solatium’ to their compensation claim;

(ii) In the cases where compensation claims are alive on the aforesaid date, but the landowner has claimed ‘interest’, ‘solatium’, and ‘interest on solatium’ after 28.03.2008, no interest on both components shall be payable for the period of delay. Such landowner shall be entitled to ‘interest’ and ‘interest on solatium’ only from the date on which such claims were raised; and

3/5

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

Cont. P(MD)No.756 of 2024

(iii) If the claims of the landowners stood concluded prior to 28.03.2008, with no further appeal, Writ Petition, Special Leave Petition, etc., then such landowners are not entitled to seek reopening, review, or modification of the said decision for the purpose of claiming ‘solatium’ or ‘interest’.”

3.Hence, the respondents may have to redetermine the

compensation payable to the petitioner under the new Act. I direct the competent authorities / RDO to redetermine the compensation payable to the petitioner and disburse the same within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid direction, the contempt petition is closed.

26.03.2026

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No rmi To

The Contempt Authority / Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition for National Highways, Kulithalai, Karur District.

4/5

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

Cont. P(MD)No.756 of 2024

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

rmi

Cont. P(MD)No.756 of 2024 in W.P.(MD)No.18363 of 2022

26.03.2026

5/5

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