Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Murugesan Vs The Competent Authority and — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Home
Madras HC
2026
Murugesan Vs The Competent Authority andMurugesan v. The Competent Authority and

Disposed¶38

Murugesan v. The Competent Authority and

Madras HC25 Mar 2026WP/1476/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition compensation writ, Article 226 mandamus, Madras High Court, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, 25-03-2026. Fifteen petitioners seek action on representation dated 08.12.2021 for disbursal of 30% solatium with interest, referencing Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (Civil Appeal No.7064 of 2019). First respondent: Competent Authority/Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition) NH-68 Villupuram; second respondent: Project Officer, NHAI-68 Salem. Petition disposed with 8-week disposal direction; no opinion on merits; no quantum awarded; no costs. Counsel: A. Kalaiselvi for petitioners; S. Indhu Bala (AGP) for R1; Su. Srinivasan (SC) for R2.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 08.12.2021 on merits and in accordance with law within eight (8) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; writ petition disposed of with no costs.

Why is it important?

The Court confined itself to the limited relief sought and expressly declined to express any opinion on the merits of the solatium claim. ¶37

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the first respondent to dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 08.12.2021 on merits and in accordance with law within eight (8) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; writ petition disposed of with no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the first respondent should be directed to consider the petitioners' representation dated 08.12.2021 seeking disbursement of the statutory entitlement of 30% solatium with interest till the day of payment.

Court's answer

The Court confined itself to the limited relief sought and expressly declined to express any opinion on the merits of the solatium claim.

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed the first respondent to dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 08.12.2021 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Krishnan Ramasamy, J.) disposed of WP No. 1476 of 2022, filed under Article 226 by fifteen petitioners through a Writ of Mandamus prayer seeking disbursal of statutory entitlement of 30% solatium with interest till the day of payment, invoking the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India and another Vs Tarsem Singh and others (Civil Appeal No.7064 of 2019). The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits, directed the first respondent (Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition, NH-68, Villupuram) to dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 08.12.2021 on merits and in accordance with law within eight (8) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. No costs. No solatium was adjudicated or awarded.

A

WP No. 1476 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 1476 of 2022

Murugaesan

Munusami

Balamani

Shanmugam

Mohan

Saraswathi Palaniappan

Thirukumaran

Kalai Selvi

Selvaraj 10.Ponnusamy 11.Arumugam 12.Velayutham 13.Parthibhan 14.Umanath 15.Madahammal

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition) Nationality Highways-68, Villupuram. Holding Additional Charge of The Competent Authority, and Special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition), National Highways-68, Salem.

The Project Officer, National Highways Authority of India-68, Salem.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to disburse the

Page1 of 4

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

WP No. 1476 of 2022

statutory entitlement namely 30% Solatium with interest till the day of payment, in the light of judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India and another Vs Tarsem Singh and others in Civil Appeal No.7064 of 2019 by considering petitioners representation dated 08.12.2021.

For Petitioner(s) : Ms.A.Kalaiselvi for K.Sudhakar

For Respondent(s): Ms.S.Indhu Bala, AGP for R1 Mr.Su.Srinivasan, SC for R2

ORDER

This writ petition is filed to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 08.12.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have made a representation dated 08.12.2021 to disburse the statutory entitlement namely 30% solatium with interest till the day of payment, in the light judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India and another Vs., Tarsem Singh and others, in Civil Appeal No.7064 of 2019. However, the said representation was not considered, as on date. Hence, this writ petition.

Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first

respondent would submit that the petitioners’ representation dated 08.12.2021 will be considered within a period of 8 weeks.

__________ Page2 of 4

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

WP No. 1476 of 2022

Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials

available on record.

Considering the limited relief sought by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the first respondent to dispose of the petitioners’ representation dated 08.12.2021, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No

costs.

25-03-2026

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

VM

To:

The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition) Nationality Highways-68, Villupuram.

Holding Additional Charge of The Competent Authority, and special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition), National Highways-68 Salem.

The Project Officer, National Highways Authority of India-68, Salem.

__________ Page3 of 4

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

WP No. 1476 of 2022

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

VM

WP No. 1476 of 2022

25-03-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the first respondent should be directed to consider the petitioners' representation dated 08.12.2021 seeking disbursement of the statutory entitlement of 30% solatium with interest till the day of payment.¶28
The court held
The Court confined itself to the limited relief sought and expressly declined to express any opinion on the merits of the solatium claim.ratio¶37

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Union of India and another Vs Tarsem Singh and othersReferred¶24
Civil Appeal No.7064 of 2019

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶20

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioners made a representation dated 08.12.2021 to the respondents seeking disbursement of statutory entitlement (30% solatium with interest till the day of payment), relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (Civil Appeal No.7064 of 2019); the representation remained unconsidered, prompting this writ petition.¶29

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Murugaesan¶6
Ms.A.Kalaiselvi
petitioner
Munusami¶7
Ms.A.Kalaiselvi
petitioner
Balamani¶8
Ms.A.Kalaiselvi
petitioner
Shanmugam¶9
Ms.A.Kalaiselvi
petitioner
Mohan¶10
Ms.A.Kalaiselvi
petitioner
Saraswathi Palaniappan¶11
Ms.A.Kalaiselvi
petitioner
Thirukumaran¶12
Ms.A.Kalaiselvi
petitioner
Kalai Selvi¶13
Ms.A.Kalaiselvi
petitioner
Selvaraj¶14
Ms.A.Kalaiselvi
petitioner
Ponnusamy¶14
Ms.A.Kalaiselvi
petitioner
Arumugam¶14
Ms.A.Kalaiselvi
petitioner
Velayutham¶14
Ms.A.Kalaiselvi
petitioner
Parthibhan¶14
Ms.A.Kalaiselvi
petitioner
Umanath¶14
Ms.A.Kalaiselvi
petitioner
Madahammal¶14
Ms.A.Kalaiselvi
respondent
The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition) Nationality Highways-68, Villupuram¶17
Ms.S.Indhu Bala
respondent
The Project Officer, National Highways Authority of India-68, Salem¶18
Mr.Su.Srinivasan

Coram

AI extract

Krishnan Ramasamyauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 25 Mar 2026 · March
Registered: 27 Jan 2022
Case no.: WP/1476/2022
CNR: HCMA010106982022
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
Disposal: DISPOSED OF
Case type: WP

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Krishnan Ramasamy

G.Poongavanam Vs the Government of India
24 Mar 2026
C.Kandasamy Vs The Assistant Settlement Officer
24 Mar 2026
Sumathi Vs The District Registrar
24 Mar 2026
Np.Karunakaran Vs the Registrar
25 Mar 2026
Mr. Krishnan, Vs the Arbitrator Cum District Collector
25 Mar 2026
P.Ramkumar Vs the Regional Manager
25 Mar 2026

Cite this judgement

Murugesan v. The Competent Authority and, WP/1476/2022 (MAD), decided on 25 March 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

Union of India and another Vs Tarsem Singh and othersReferred¶24

Open Authorities

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history1

Petitioners made a representation dated 08.12.2021 to the respondents seeking disbursement of statutory entitlement (30% solatium with interest till the day of payment), relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (Civil Appeal No.7064 of 2019); the representation remained unconsidered, prompting this writ petition.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Krishnan Ramasamy

Parties & counsel