Canara Bank, v. The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition),

ORDER The present Writ Petition has been filed for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned communication dated

18.07.2026 bearing Ref.No.12017/6/2023-PIU RMD/754 issued by third respondent and subsequently to grant the petitioner Bank a reasonable period of not less than 9 and up to twelve months from the date of orders of this Court within which to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the said premises.

¶2The sixth respondent is the owner of the land, and the petitioner is the tenant in respect of the said premises. The third respondent has acquired the said land for the purpose of laying National Highway from Paramakudi to Ramanathapuram. A notice had already been issued to the landlord. However, the petitioner came to know about the proposed acquisition as early as November 2025. Thereafter, the petitioner invited tenders seeking offers for alternative premises. The petitioner Bank also submitted a representation dated 02.01.2026 seeking six months time, which expired on

02.07.2026. Thereafter, based on the notice issued under Section 3E(1) of the National Highways Act, the official respondents started digging the earth in front of the Bank. According to the petitioner, the Bank is in possession of valuable assets, including pledged gold ornaments and the official respondents are forcing the petitioner to evict the said premises. Aggrieved by the communication dated 18.07.2026, directing the petitioner to hand over vacant possession within seven days, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶3The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, in view of the urgency expressed by the respondents, the petitioner Bank had already entered into an Agreement to Lease with one Thiyagarajan on 25.06.2026. It was further submitted that the construction of the new building is in progress and is likely to be completed within another six months. Therefore, the petitioner seeks an extension of time of six months to vacate the existing premises.

¶4The learned Additional Solicitor General of India vehemently opposed the grant of any further time and submitted that the petitioner had already been granted six months time. After receiving the petitioner's representation seeking extension of time, the respondents acted upon the same and though no formal order was passed, remained silent and permitted the petitioner to continue till 02.07.2026. Even thereafter, the petitioner did not vacate the premises. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now seek any further extension of time. It was further submitted that the National Highways Authority would incur heavy loss if any further extension is granted. In cases involving vacating of premises, Courts ordinarily grant only one month time. In the present case, the petitioner has sought twelve months time in the Writ Petition. Even though the petitioner has sought twelve months time in the Writ Petition, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner restricted the request to six months. Even such an extension cannot be granted in view of the escalation in project cost and the road has to be completed within the stipulated time.

¶5After hearing the rival submissions, this Court is of the considered opinion that, when the petitioner Bank is claiming that valuables are kept in the premises, especially gold, appropriate time ought to be granted. The construction is in the final stage. Therefore, the petitioner is granted an extension of time for a period of four months from today i.e., 23.07.2026, and is directed to expedite the construction of the alternative premises. The petitioner shall not seek any further extension of time. If any such petition is filed, this Court will not entertain the same. If the construction is completed before the expiry of the said period of four months, the premises shall be handed over. The official respondents shall grant access to the building to the petitioner during the said period.

¶6With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

23.07.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes jbr NOTE: Issue order copy on 23.07.2026 To:

¶1The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways-49, Kadampa Nagar, Collectorate Complex, Ramanathapuram - 623 503.

¶2The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), National Highway-49, Unit-II DPR, Taluk Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.

¶3The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Project Implementation, Unit (PIU) - Ramanathapuram, 1st and 2nd Floor, 13/3003/200, Brinthavan Garden, 1st Street, Suppaiah Nagar, Ramanathapuram – 623 503.

¶4National Highways Authority Of India, Rep by its Chairman, Plot No.G-5 and G-6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110007.

¶5Union of India, Rep by the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan, New Delhi. S.SRIMATHY

, J.

jbr DATED : 23.07.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.15489 & 15492 of 2026 Canara Bank, Manjur Branch, Having its Branch Office at Door No.1/47, Manjur, Barandi Kanakkai Post, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanthapuram District – 623 527, represented by its Branch Manager ... Petitioner Vs 1. The Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), National Highways-49, Kadampa Nagar, Collectorate Complex, Ramanathapuram - 623 503. 2. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), National Highway-49, Unit-II DPR, Taluk Office, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. 3. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Project Implementation, Unit (PIU) - Ramanathapuram, 1st and 2nd Floor, 13/3003/200, Brinthavan Garden, 1st Street, Suppaiah Nagar, Ramanathapuram – 623 503. 4. National Highways Authority Of India, Rep by its Chairman, Plot No.G-5 and G-6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110007. 5. Union of India, Rep by the Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan, New Delhi. 6. K.N.Nagarajan ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned communication dated 18.07.2026 bearing Ref.No.12017/6/2023- PIU RMD/754 issued by Respondent No.3, and quash the same and subsequently grant the Petitioner Bank a reasonable period of not less than 9 and up to 12 months from the date of orders of this Court within which to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the said premises. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Senior Counsel For Mr.Deepak.C For R1 & R-2 : Mr.K.Saravanan, Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu For R-3 & R-4 : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General of India For Mr.P.Karthick For R-5 : Mr.V.Malaiyendran Central Government Senior Standing Counsel