IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-03-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH REV.APLW No. 80 of 2021 in W.P.No.9445 of 2020 Sadasivam Petitioner Vs

1. The District collector -cum - Arbitrator, Under the National Highways Act, Collectorate, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

2.The Competent Authority and Special District Revenue Officer (L.A), National Highways, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

3.National Highways Authority of India, Rep. by its Chairman, G- 5 and 6, Sector -10, Dwarka, New Delhi 110 075.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C., to review the order dated 08.09.2020 passed in WP.No. 9445 of 2020 and allow the Writ Petition No.9445 of 2020.

For Appellant(s): Mr.J.Hudson Samuel For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.Su.Srinivasan Standing Counsel For R3

ORDER

This petition has been filed to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9445 of 2020 dated 08.09.2020 on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the order.

2.Heard Mr.J.Hudson Samuvel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent.

3.This Court dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 08.09.2020 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

9. The petitioner had approached this Court by challenging the award passed by the third respondent dated 30.12.2016 after nearly four years. The petitioner wants to take advantage of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh and others reported in 2019 (9) SCC 304 referred supra. For reasons best known to the petitioner, he did not choose to challenge the award immediately like it was done by the other two co-owners. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to create a new cause of action based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was rendered on 19.09.2019. The law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at a later point of time cannot become a cause of action for the petitioner to challenge an earlier award that was passed on 30.12.2016. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner that the matter has to be remanded to the third respondent to enable the petitioner to work out his remedy by claiming solatium in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not sustainable.

10. The Act itself provides for an alternative remedy of challenging the award passed by the District Collector. This alternative remedy must be resorted to and a Writ Petition cannot be filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning given by the third respondent while rejecting the claim made by the other two co- owners seeking for enhancement of compensation will equally apply to the petitioner also. No useful purpose will be served by again remitting the matter to the file of the third respondent only to consider the claim made by the petitioner. The petitioner has to necessarily challenge the order passed by the second respondent and seek for whatever relief he is entitled for in law.

11. In view of the above discussion, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court. It is made clear that the order passed by the third respondent dated 03.09.2019 will also equally apply to the petitioner, since he is also a co-owner of the property. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, it is always open to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law by filing an appropriate petition challenging the order passed by the third respondent dated 03.09.2019. Except giving this liberty, no further orders can be passed by this Court.

4.The main ground that was urged by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of National Highways Authority of India is that the proceedings have reached finalit