Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
P.Selvam S/o.Perumal, D.No.455, Slaem Main Roa, Kaniyamoor Post, Chinnasalem Taluk,Kallakurichi. – Appellant
Versus
The Special District Revenue officer (Land Acquisition), The Competent Authority Land Acquisition, National Highways- 68, Room No.414, 4th Floor, Collector Office building, salem- 636 001. – Respondent
Writ Petition

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.Sudhakar, S.Dhilipan
For the Respondents: M/s. Su. Srinivasan Sc, Mr. P. Sathish Agp

Court mandated the timely consideration of petitions regarding statutory entitlements according to precedent provisions.

Headnote:The judgment addresses the statutory entitlement for solatium as per the precedent set in Union of India and Another Vs Tarsem Singh. The petitioners sought to compel the respondents to consider their pending representation. The Court ordered the 1st respondent to address the representation within a specified time, without commenting on the merits of the case. The final outcome reflects an obligation for prompt administrative action.

Table of Content
1. petition for statutory entitlement on solatium. (Para 1 , 2)
2. government response ensures timely resolution. (Para 3)
3. court reviews case without prejudice. (Para 4)
4. order for prompt administrative action. (Para 5)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 11.10.2022.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the petitioner has given a representation dated 11.10.2022 to disburse the statutory entitlement namely 30 percent solatium with interest till the day of payment, in the light of judgment of Honble Supreme court of India in the matter of Union of India and Another Vs Tarsem Singh and others, in civil Appeal No.7064 of 2019. However, the said representation was not at all considered by the respondent till date. Hence, this petition.

3. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner's representation dated 11.01.2022 will be disposed of by the 1^st respondent within a period of 8 weeks.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and also perused the entire materials available on record.

5. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, this Court directs the 1^st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 11.10.2022 and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No cost.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document