BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R. POORNIMA W.A.(MD)No.3148 of 2025 & C.M.P.(MD)No.19029 of 2025 K.P.Selvam ... Appellant Vs.

1. The District Collector, O/o.The Collectorate, Ramnad - 623 503.

2.The Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition for National Highway Officer, O/o.The Collectorate, Ramnad - 623 503.

3.The Project Director, National Highways 49, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), Subramaniapuram, Karaikudi - 630 002. ... Respondents PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 30.10.2025 passed in W.P.(MD)No.26996 of 2025 before this Court and allow this writ appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.K.P.Selvam (party-in-person)

For Respondents : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja for R1 & R2 Mr.B.Naveen Kumar for Mr.S.U.Srinivasan for R3

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

The appellant is the writ petitioner, and had sought a mandamus directing the Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition for National Highways / R2 to grant fair compensation to him within a time frame to be fixed by the Court. The writ petition came to be disposed on 30.10.2025.

2. The admitted facts are that the appellant was the owner of

1938 square metres of land in S.Nos.41/3A, 41/3C and 542/2, Kamuthakudi Group Village, Paramakudi, Ramnad District. Proceedings were initiated for acquisition under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. An Award was passed on 19.05.2025 and the appellant accedes to the receipt of consideration.

3. Before the writ Court, his claim was that the determination of compensation was not in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Land Acquisition Act)

4. Per contra, the respondents had contended that compensation had been correctly determined and was also deposited in the appellant's Bank account. As far as receipt of compensation is concerned, even before us, the appellant who appears in person does not dispute the same. His only grouse is that the Award was itself not served on him and hence, he had no occasion to challenge the determination of the compensation.

5. While disposing the writ petition, the learned Judge has noted that both the National Highways Act, 1956 as well as 2013 Land Acquisition Act contained elaborate and clear mechanisms for the determination of compensation and for seeking of enhancement of the same. Hence, the learned Judge declined to intervene by way of discretionary jurisdiction, granting liberty to the appellant to seek enhanced compensation following the protocols set out under the aforesaid enactments.

6. We see no error in that order and hence, confirm the same.

In order to satisfy ourselves that the Award was, in fact, served on the appellant, we had requested Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, leaned Additional Government Pleader to provide proof of service of the Award on the appellant and have been supplied with the acknowledgment of receipt of the Award on 06.11.2025 by the appellant. The appellant had also sought a copy of the Award under Right to Information Act, 2005, and two copies appear to have been supplied to him.

7. Hence, we reiterate the liberty granted to the appellant to approach the competent Authorities for enhancement of compensation, in accordance with law, if so inclined, and this writ appeal stands disposed.

No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.P.J.,]

27.11.2025 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes mbi To

1. The District Collector, O/o.The Collectorate, Ramnad - 623 503.

2.The Special District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition for National Highway Officer, O/o.The Collectorate, Ramnad - 623 503.

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

AND R. POORNIMA, J.

mbi

27.11.2025