K.Raju v. The Competent Authority / Special District Revenue Officer (La)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.03.2026 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE & W.M.P.No.10939 of 2026 K.Raju S/o.Late Karuppannan .. Petitioner Vs.
1. The Competent Authority / Special District Revenue Officer (LA) National Highways No.7, 46, 47 & 66, Salem & Krishnagiri Districts.
2. National Highways Authority of India, Represented by its Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Salem.
Having office at Door No.212-3/D3-1, Sri Nagar Colony Narasothipatti, Salem - 636 004.
3. The Special Thasildhar, National Highways No.7, 46, 47 & 66 Salem & Krishnagiri Districts.
.. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 19.12.2025 and consequently 1/8
direct them to furnish the Field Measurement Book (FMB) extract along with the corresponding Sketch/Map in respect of the land measuring 863 sq.mts. comprised in Survey No.55/3A1 situate at Dadagapatti Village, Salem East Taluk, Salem District.
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Venkat Raman For Respondents :
Mr.D.Ravichander Special Government Pleader [R1 and R3] Mr.Su Srinivasan Standing counsel [R2] *****
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the first respondent to furnish a FMB extract along with corresponding sketch/map in respect of the land measuring 863 sq.mts. comprised in Survey No.55/3A1 situated at Dadagapatti Village, Salem East Taluk, Salem District, based on the petitioner's representation dated 19.12.2025.
2. Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3. Mr.Su Srinivasan, learned Standing Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the second respondent. 2/8
3. At the outset, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 would submit that the FMB sketch sought for by the petitioner is readily available in the Tamil Nilam website and there is no requirement for the petitioner to file this writ petition. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, only to delay the respondents taking possession of the acquired lands from the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the respondents are now attempting to take possession of excess extent of the land than what they are legally entitled to as per the land acquisition award passed against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of taking possession of 863 sq.mts., which is their legal entitlement as per the award, the respondents are attempting to encroach upon the petitioner's remaining lands while taking possession of the acquired lands. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the award as well as the Advocate Commissioner's report filed in the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.524 of 2021 on the file of District Court, Salem, in support of his contention that 3/8
the respondents are attempting to encroach upon the petitioner's remaining lands under the guise of taking possession of the lands pursuant to the award. Learned counsel would also submit, on instructions, that the petitioner having failed in his attempt to question the land acquisition in respect of 863 sq.mts., is only now going to seek for enhancement of compensation by filing appropriate proceedings as per the provisions of the National Highways Act.
5. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3 as well as the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent, in unison, would submit that the respondents will be taking possession of the acquired lands from the petitioner only in accordance with the award and they have categorically deny the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that excess lands are being taken possession of by the respondents more than their legal entitlement as per the award.
6. The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments is not part of the pleadings in this writ 4/8
petition. Since the respondents have attempted to take possession of excess lands from the petitioner only yesterday (11.03.2026), the said submission is not found part of the pleadings. The reliance on the Advocate Commissioner's report by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which has been filed in the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.524 of 2021 on the file of District Court, Salem, that too, when the said civil suit has not attained finality by passing judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner, is a last minute attempt made by the petitioner to thwart the final acquisition proceedings. The same will not have any bearing on the adjudication of this writ petition. It is also possible that the respondents, who are defendants in the said civil suit, may be filing objections to the Advocate Commissioner's report.
Only after giving due consideration to the same, the civil suit can be decided after giving due consideration to the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the respective parties. Since the legal entitlement of the respondents to acquire 863 sq.mts has not been disputed by the petitioner in this writ petition and the said acquisition has also attained finality, at this stage neither the prayer sought for in this writ petition viz., issuance of FMB sketch for 863 sq.mts.
being made by the respondents to encroach upon the petitioner's remaining lands apart from 863 sq.mts. do not arise and the said exercise will be an exercise in futility. Even the prayer sought for in this writ petition for the FMB sketch pertains only to 863 sq.mts., which is the legal entitlement of the respondents under the award. Therefore, when the acquisition of 863 sq.mts. by the respondents having attained finality and the petitioner is also not questioning the said acquisition any more and is only seeking for enhancement of compensation, the question of directing the first respondent to furnish FMB sketch for the 863 sq.mts. does not arise and it will be a useless exercise. However, necessarily, the respondents will have to strictly abide by the award, which enables them to take possession of the acquired lands from the petitioner, which is restricted to 863 sq.mts.
7. For the foregoing reasons, neither the prayer sought for in this writ petition viz., seeking for a direction to the respondents to furnish the FMB sketch for the 863 sq.mts. or the subsequent submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his submissions, which according to him, is a subsequent development, cannot be entertained at this stage, that too, when there is no undisputed evidence placed on record by the 6/8
petitioner to prove that excess lands are being taken possession of by the respondents under the guise of acquiring 863 sq.mts.
8. In terms of the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 12.03.2026 Index: Yes/No NCC:Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order gm To
1. The Competent Authority / Special District Revenue Officer (LA) National Highways No.7, 46, 47 & 66 Salem & Krishnagiri Districts
2. The National Highways Authority of India Represented by its Project Director Project Implementation Unit, Salem Door No.212-3/D3-1, Sri Nagar Colony Narasothipatti, Salem - 636 004
3. The Special Thasildhar National Highways No.7, 46, 47 & 66 Salem & Krishnagiri Districts 7/8
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J gm 12.03.2026 8/8