Disposed

Ramakrishnan v. The Competent Authority

Madras HC3 Jul 2026WP/25113/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Arbitrator/District Collector to dispose of the petitioners' representation regarding 30% solatium and interest within 12 weeks, following *Union of India v. Tarsem Singh*. The connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to dispose representation regarding solatium and interest within 12 weeks subject to personal hearing.

Ramakrishnan Vs The Competent Authority — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 25113 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

¶6

WP No. 25113 of 2026 and WMP. No.27389/2026

¶7

Ramakrishnan S/o. Vadamalai, No. 14 Nadu Street, Kilpennathur, Tiruvannamalai 604 601

¶8

Poongavanam s/o. Ramasamy Gounder, No.2, Kulakarai St, Kilpennathur, Tiruvannamalai 604601

¶9

Ramesh

¶10

S/o. Munusaym Kollakotta, Kilpennathur, Tiruvannamalai 604 601

¶11

Kandeepan S/o. Munusamy, No. 140 Tindivanam Road, Kilpennathur, Tiruvannamalai 604 601

¶12

..Petitioner(s)

¶13

¶14

The Competent Authority The Special District Revenue officer (LA), National Highways 66, villupuram Now at Vellore

¶15

The Arbitrator / District Collector Tiruvannamalai

¶16

The Project Director National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation unit, N.26 First floor, VGP Nagar, Villupuram

¶17

__________ Page1 of 7

¶18

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

¶19

WP No. 25113 of 2026

¶20

..Respondent(s)

¶21

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/ 26308/ 2020 dated 31.5.2021 in the light of the law laid down by the Honble 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.

¶22

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.N.Pandian

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the second respondent to dispose of the petitioners’ 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 31.05.2021, 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.

¶26

Page2 of 7

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 25113 of 2026

¶29

The case of the petitioners is that the property situated in S.F. Nos. 180/2A2, 180/5A1, 181/1B, 181/2B, 181/3M, 181/5B, 181/3J2, 181/3L, 181/3N1, 181/6C, 181/7A, 182/2C1, 182/2E1, 180/3, 180/4A, 180/7A, 181/6B2, measuring an extent of 00859 sq.m, 00480sq.m, 00009sq.m, 00276 sq.m, 00500 sq.m, 02140 sq.m, 00580 sq.m, 00200 sq.m, 00872 sq.m, 00275 sq.m, 00460 sq.m, 02373 sq.m, 00230 sq.m, 00420 sq.m, 01790 sq.m, 00500 sq.m, 00410 sq.m, in Samuthiram Village, Thiruvannamalai, , belonged to the petitioners. 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, fixing a low land value of Rs. 159/- per sq.m without considering the actual market value of the property. Consequently, the petitioners 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, vide an award, granted a meagre enhancement of only 20% and denied the 30% solatium and 15% interest.

¶30

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed an Arbitration Original Petition before the Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, for enhanced

¶31

Page3 of 7

¶32

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

¶33

WP No. 25113 of 2026

¶34

compensation and payment of solatium and interest. The District Court allowed the original petition, set aside the award of the second respondent, and remanded the matter back to the Arbitrator for a fresh enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a fresh Arbitration Petition, wherein the second respondent vide award, 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 award was passed as early as 31.05.2021, the second respondent has not taken any action to pay the compensation in accordance with law.

¶35

Further, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners 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 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 petitioners have not been paid statutory benefits such as 30% solatium and accrued interest on solatium for the delayed payment, they 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 petitioners have approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition.

¶36

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the eligibility of the petitioners has to be verified by the

¶37

Page4 of 7

¶38

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

¶39

WP No. 25113 of 2026

¶40

authorities concerned in the light of the above-cited judgment and, hence, the representation of the petitioners will be considered within a period of 12 weeks in the manner known to law.

¶41

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

¶42

Such being the facts of the case, this Court directs the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioners 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.

¶43

This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No

¶44

costs. Consequently connected WMP.No.27389/2026, is allowed, subject to payment of separate Court fee.

¶45

03-07-2026

¶46

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

¶47

¶48

__________ Page5 of 7

¶49

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

¶50

WP No. 25113 of 2026

¶51

¶52

The Competent Authority The Special District Revenue officer (LA), National Highways 66, villupuram Now at Vellore

¶53

The Arbitrator / District Collector Tiruvannamalai

¶54

The Project Director National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation unit, N.26 First floor, VGP Nagar, Villupuram

¶55

__________ Page6 of 7

¶56

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

¶57

WP No. 25113 of 2026

¶58

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

¶59

¶60

WP No. 25113 of 2026

¶61

03-07-2026

¶62

__________ Page7 of 7

¶63

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

Ramakrishnan v. The Competent Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnan v. The Competent Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Radha Vs The District Collector

V.Periasamy Vs The Joint Commissioner

K.Shankar Ganesh Vs the District Registrar

K.Baskaran Vs The Sub Registrar

Ashtalakshmi Vs The Competent Authority

Kuppan Vs The Competent Authority