Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
M. Thangasami, S/o. Maruthai Udaiyar - Petitioner
Versus
The Project Officer, NHAI Bangalore-Chennai Expressway, Bengaluru & Ors. - Respondents
WP No. 21106 of 2024 And WMP No. 23038 of 2024,WMP No. 23037 of 2024
Decided On : 08-04-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S. Nedunchezhiyan.
For the Respondent: M/s. S.R. Sumathy, Mr. P. Sathish, Addl. Govt. Pleader.

The court reaffirmed that compensation for lost trees must consider their accurately assessed age and value, allowing petitioners to appeal for adjustments as necessary under established legal provisions.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act - Section 3(G)(5) - Supplementary awards for compensation of trees - Writ petition filed challenging refusal to reassess compensation for trees lost due to highway project - Previous orders direct assessment of additional trees and correction of age for compensation purposes. (Paras 1, 15)

(B) Discussion of valuation of trees - Court asserts that proper valuation must take into account accurate age assessments as determined by relevant agricultural reports. (Paras 6, 10)

(C) Final decision on remedies available - Petitioner directed to appeal to the District Collector where compensation grievances will be addressed based on existing reports. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims that the compensation awarded for trees, such as sapotta and coconut, did not reflect their age or full value as assessed by experts, and seeks redress for underpayment. The awarded total compensation is Rs.88,90,766/- including solatium. (Paras 1, 34)

Findings of Court:
The compensation had been determined, but the petitioner may seek further adjustment through proper legal channels to address any remaining discrepancies in the awarded amounts. (Paras 15, 16)

Issues: The court addressed whether the assessments made concerning the age and value of various trees were correct and whether the petitioner was entitled to seek further compensation. (Paras 8, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that established compensation figures, once set, remain unless appealed, affirming the need for petitioners to utilize existing legal remedies for discrepancies in awards. (Paras 16)

Result: Writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to file appeal to the District Collector.

Table of Content
1. challenge on compensatory process for agricultural losses. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. assessment inconsistency regarding tree compensation. (Para 6 , 7 , 9)
3. legal recourse to appeal for compensation review. (Para 10 , 15)

ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the 3^rd respondent dated 28.06.2024 and the order passed by the 4^th respondent dated 09.07.2024 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to pass supplementary award in respect of the left out trees and the well and also the bore well based on the reassessment report submitted by the Department of Agriculture and Department of Horticulture and the Forest Department.

2. When this writ petition came up for hearing on 14.02.2025, this Court passed the following order:-

Heard Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.S.R.Sumathy learned Standing Counsel for R1.

2. The petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.30712 of 2023 and this writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 30.11.2023 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

3. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is redressed and supplementary award was also passed. The petitioner can receive the award amount, though he received the original award amount.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider and pass Award for the missing number of Sappota Trees and also Teak wood trees etc. If they have already calculated and passed the Award, the same shall be paid to the petitioner and the petitioner shall receive the same. If the petitioner has any grievance with the quantum, he can work out his remedy in the manner known to law.

3. The 1^st respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the 1^st respondent has taken a stand that the compensation claimed by the petitioner for the trees was already fixed and the total compensation is to the tune of Rs.88,90,766/- which includes 100% solatium. For proper appreciation, para 34 in the counter is extracted hereunder:

34. In reply to averments made in para 14 of the affidavit, it is humbly submitted that previously the petitioner had filed WP.30712 of 2023 before this Hon'ble Court praying to reassess the compensation by including the missing number of Sapota trees, Mango trees, Fig trees and Teakwood Trees, Structures, Fencing and also by rectifying the errors in calculation of the age and value of the trees which includes the Coconut trees and to provide appropriate compensation with interest to the petitioner. Hon'ble High Court vide its Order dated 30.11.2023 disposed the petition directing the Respondents to pass the Award for missing no.of trees and if the award has already been passed, the petitioner shall receive the compensation for the same. It is humbly submitted that the Awards for various trees (190-Coconut, 179-Teakwood, 52-Eucalyptus, 135-Sapotta, 13-Mango, 5-Fig, 1-Neem, 1-Kodukapuli,1-Nuna) in acquired lands have already been passed by the 3^rd respondent. The details of compensation awarded for trees are as hereunder;

Sy.No.	Name of the landowner	Details of Trees	No.of trees	Total compensation paid to the petitioner including 100% solatium (in Rs.)
139/2	Thangasamy S/o. Maruthai Udayar	Coconut	42	6,72,000
		Eucalyptus	4	7,144
		Teakwood	40	90,738
		Sapotta	15	4,78,800
		Athi	3	66,150

Sy.No.	Name of the landowner	Details of Trees	No.of trees	Total compensation paid to the petitioner including 100% solatium (in Rs.)
		Coconut	84	13,44,000
		Eucalyptus	11	22,232

Sy.No.	Name of the landowner	Details of Trees	No.of trees	Total compensation paid to the petitioner including 100% solatium (in Rs.)
141/3 B2	Thangasamy S/o.Maruthai Udayar	Neem	1	42
		Mango	10	4,79,3 20
		Teakwood	61	2,02,424
		Teakwood	9	35,532
		Mango	3	1,89,000
		Sapotta	1	33,600
		Fig	2	44,100
		Sapotta	98	31,28,160
		Coconut	24	4,08,000
		Eucalyptus	26	15,516
		Kodukapuli	1	380
		Nuna	1	352
		Teakwood	26	89,254
141/4	Thangasamy S/o.Maruthai Udyayar	Sapotta	21	7,05,600
		Coconut	32	6,08,000
		Eucalyptus	11	5,180
		Teakwood	43	1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2874

The court reaffirmed that compensation for lost trees must consider their accurately assessed age and value, allowing petitioners to appeal for adjustments as necessary under established legal provisions.

Related Judgments

M. Thangasami, S/o. Maruthai Udaiyar vs Project Officer, NHAI Bangalore-Chennai Expressway, Bengaluru - 2025 Supreme(Mad) 2874

G. Arockia Raj vs District Collector Dindigul District. - 2025 Supreme(Mad) 3087

Pramod VS State of Maharashtra - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 1556

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL ) vs SRI. BASAVARAJU - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37572

Executive Engineer, Major Works Division VS M. R. thopegowda - 2022 Supreme(Kar) 1323

Munshi S/O Baj Khan Gujjar vs Union Territory of J Ammu And Kashmir Though Its Commissioner/Secretary - 2025 Supreme(J&K) 72

The Assistant Engineer II Tamil Nadu Transmission Corporation Transmission Line Construction Tantransco/ TNEB, Salem 636 014 vs S.P.Spinning Mills Private Limited Through Its Managing Director P.Kanakarajan No.3/233, Cuddalore Main Road Karipatti Salem 636 106 - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 29672

N.Beulah Johnselvaraj vs The Competent Authority and The Special District Revenue Officer (LA) National Highways, Kanchipuram. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33692

Executive Engineer Bembla Project Division VS Manik Panjabrao Kalmegh - 2021 Supreme(Bom) 1548

Datla Radha Jaya Lakshmi vs Special Deputy Collector( Land Acquisition) - 2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 8558