Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
Suresh Babu – Appellant
Versus
The Special District revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition), The competent Authority Land Acquisition, National Highways-68 – Respondent
Writ Petition

Advocates:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Sudhakar
For the Respondent(s): Mrs.S.Indhu Bala, AGP for R1, Mr.Su.Srinivasan, Sc For R2

Court directs consideration of representation for 30% solatium and interest in land acquisition within 12 weeks.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks disbursement of 30% solatium with interest under land acquisition laws, referencing Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (Civil Appeal No. 7064 of 2019). Facts involve a representation dated 17.12.2021 not considered by respondents. Court finds representation pending and directs consideration without merits opinion. Issue framed as directing consideration of representation for statutory entitlements. Ratio involves procedural directive to dispose representation on merits within 12 weeks per law. Writ petition disposed of with directions to first respondent to consider and dispose representation dated 17.12.2021 within 12 weeks.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim for solatium and interest per supreme court ruling. (Para 2)
2. respondent's undertaking to dispose representation in 12 weeks. (Para 3)
3. court directs consideration and disposal without merits opinion. (Para 4 , 5)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 17.12.2021.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, a representation was filed by the petitioner to disburse the statutoy entitlement namely 30% 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 counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner's representation will be disposed of by the 1^st respondent within a period of 12 weeks.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and 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 17.12.2021 and dispose of the same, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of 12 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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 31188

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASKRISHNAN RAMASAMY, JSuresh Babu – AppellantVersusThe Special District revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition), The competent Authority Land Acquisition, National Highways-68 – RespondentWrit Petition

Court directs consideration of representation for 30% solatium and interest in land acquisition within 12 weeks.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J
Suresh Babu – Appellant
Versus
The Special District revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition), The competent Authority Land Acquisition, National Highways-68 – Respondent
Writ Petition