Kuppan Vs The Competent Authority

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 25.09.2025 for payment of 30 percent solatium as well as 15 percent interest on the award passed by the second respondent vide proceedings No. M1/ 27481/ 2020 dated 13.08.2022 in the light of the law laid down by the Apex court in C.A. No.7064/ 2019 dated 19.9.2019 which was affirmed in M.A.No. 1773/ 2021 in C.A. No.7064/2/2019 dated 4.2.2025 and reiterate in Review petition No. 2528/ 2025 in M.A.No. 1773/2021 in C.A. No. 7064/2019 dated 25.3.2026.

¶14

Page1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

WP No. 25107 of 2026

¶17

For Petitioner(s):	Mr.K.N.Pandian
For Respondent(s):	Ms.Inthu Karunakaran, Government Counsel for R1 and R2
	Mrs.S.R.Sumathy, Standing Counsel for R3

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 25.09.2025 for payment of 30 percent solatium as well as 15 percent interest on the award passed by the second respondent vide proceedings dated 13.08.2022, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in C.A. No. 7064/2019 dated 19.09.2019, which was subsequently affirmed in M.A. No. 1773/2021 and Review Petition No. 2528/2025.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that the property situated in S.F. Nos. 126/9B1, 126/10A, 137/2, 137/4, and 137/1, measuring an extent of 1,210 sq.m, 2,280 sq.m, 960 sq.m, 2,360 sq.m, and 3,950 sq.m respectively, belonged to the petitioner. While so, the said lands were acquired for the purpose of formation of a two-lane bypass road on National Highway 66 (Tindivanam–Krishnagiri) between km 85/600 and km 155/200. The first respondent, after following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the National Highways Act, passed an award dated 28.11.2011 fixing a low land value of Rs. 270/- per sq.m without considering the actual market value of the property. Consequently, the

¶21

Page2 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

WP No. 25107 of 2026

¶24

petitioner filed an arbitration petition before the second respondent seeking an enhanced compensation of Rs. 5,000/- per sq.m, 30% solatium, and interest at 9% for the first year and 15% for the remaining period. The second respondent,

¶25

vide an award dated 09.09.2020, granted a meagre enhancement of only 20% and denied the 30% solatium and 15% interest.

¶26

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an Arbitration Original Petition before the Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, for enhanced compensation and payment of solatium and interest. The District Court allowed the original petition vide order dated 13.08.2022, set aside the award of the second respondent, and remanded the matter back to the Arbitrator for a fresh enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh Arbitration Petition, wherein the second respondent enhanced the compensation to two times the original award but ignored the relief of 30% solatium and 15% interest for the belated period. Further, though the order was passed as early as 13.08.2022, the second respondent has not taken any action to pay the compensation in accordance with law.

¶27

Further, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh and Others in C.A. No. 7064/2019, dated 19.09.2019, has categorically held

¶28

Page3 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 25107 of 2026

¶31

that landowners are entitled to the benefits of interest, solatium, and interest on solatium, irrespective of any inordinate delay in claiming the same, provided their representation is pending for consideration. As per the said judgment, since the petitioner has not been paid statutory benefits such as 30% solatium and accrued interest on solatium for the delayed payment, he made a representation to the second respondent on 25.09.2025 enclosing the relevant documents. Since the said representation has not been considered till date, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition.

¶32

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the eligibility of the petitioner has to be verified by the authorities concerned in the light of the above-cited judgment and, hence, the representation of the petitioner will be considered within a period of 12 weeks in the manner known to law.

¶33

Heard both sides and also perused the materials available on record.

¶34

Such being the facts of the case, this Court directs the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner and pass orders by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh and Others , within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

¶35

Page4 of 6

¶36

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

¶37

WP No. 25107 of 2026

¶38