Sangeetha v. The Competent Authority

ORDER 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 16.10.2023, 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.

¶2The case of the petitioners is that the property situated in various survey numbers measuring about 16.74 acres, situated 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. 215.50/- 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 Page4 of 7 remaining period. The second respondent, vide an award, granted a meagre enhancement of only 20% and denied the 30% solatium and 15% interest.

¶3Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners 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, 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 16.10.2023, the second respondent has not taken any action to pay the compensation in accordance with law.

¶4Further, 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 Page5 of 7 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.

¶5The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the eligibility of the petitioners has to be verified by the 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.

¶6Heard both sides and also perused the materials available on record.

¶7Such 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. Page6 of 7

¶8This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently connected WMP.No.27396/2026, is allowed, subject to payment of separate Court fee. 03-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SK To

¶1The Competent Authority The Special District Revenue officer (LA), National Highways 66, Villupuram Now at Vellore.

¶2the Arbitrator / District collector Tiruvannamalai

¶3The project director National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation unit, N.26 First floor, VGP Nagar, Villupuram WPoNo.o25121oofo2026 KRISHNANoRAMASAMY,oJ. sk WPoNo.o25121oofo2026 03-07-2026 Page7oofo7

Page1 of 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 25121 of 2026 and WMP.No.27396 of 2026 1. Sangeetha W/o.Nareshchand Jain Atthiyandal Village, Tiruvannamalai. 2. Kamalchand Jain S/o.Amarchand Jain, Atthiyandal Village, Tiruvannamalai. 3. A.Mathivanan S/o.Arumugam, Atthiyandal Village, Tiruvannamalai. 4. Chandra S/o.Ramasamy, Kottavur,Aanaipiranthan, Pandithapattu Post, Tiruvannamalai. 5. M.D.Sadanandam S/o.M.A.P.Duraisamy Atthiyandal Village, Tiruvannamalai. 6. A.Sadiq Pasha S/o.Abdulkader, Atthiyandal Village, Tiruvannamalai. 7. P.Gunasekaran S/o.Pattusamy Atthiyandal Village, Tiruvannamalai. 8. P.Amaresan S/o.Pattusamy, Page2 of 7 Atthiyandal Village, Tiruvannamalai. ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. The Competent Authority The Special District Revenue officer (LA), National Highways 66, Villupuram Now at Vellore. 2. the Arbitrator / District collector Tiruvannamalai 3. The project director National Highways Authority of India, Project Implementation unit, N.26 First floor, VGP Nagar, Villupuram ..Respondent(s) 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 petitioners 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/ 26475/ 2021 dated 16.10.2023 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. 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 Page3 of 7