SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 14301

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
T.D.TAMILARASAN – Appellant
Versus
THE CHAIRMAN – Respondent



Important Points

Court mandates timely consideration of land access representation after acquisition under national legislation.

Subject

Civil - Land Acquisition

Act Referred

Headnote

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus directing respondents to consider the petitioner's representation for access to the remaining land after a portion was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The court ordered the third respondent to consider the representation within two months after providing an opportunity to the petitioner. The outcome of the case does not entail costs.

Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr.G.V.Sridharan
For the Respondents: Mr.Su.Srinivasan, Standing Counsel for R1 and R2, Ms.S.Indhu Bala, Additional Government Pleader for R3

Table of Content
1. access after land acquisition (Para 1 , 4)
2. notice acceptance (Para 2 , 3)
3. consideration of representation mandated (Para 5)

ORDER

After a portion of the petitioner's land was acquired by initiating proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956, it is stated that the petitioner has been deprived of access to the remaining land in Survey No.303/2B, Vembanoor Village, Cheyyur Taluk, Chengalpattu District. After submitting a representation dated 22.01.2026 in this regard, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice for respondents 1 and 2 and Ms.S.Indhu Bala, learned Additional Government Pleader, accepts notice for the third respondent.

3. Learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the petitioner's representation would be considered and disposed of on merits.

4. The petitioner asserts that the remaining land owned by him abuts the East Coast Road. It is also asserted that as a result of the acquisition, the petitioner does not have any access to his property. This aspect has to be considered by the third respondent, including by inspecting the site.

5. Subject to the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 22.01.2026, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top