B.Kirupal Singh v. The District Collector,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.(MD)Nos.18172 & 18173 of 2025 W.P.(MD)No.18172 of 2025 B.Kirupal Singh
...Petitioner
Vs
...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to calling for the records to the impugned order his proceeding in Na.Ka.No.T1/14323/2011 dated 08.05.2025 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to refer the matter to the Reference Court for an enhancement of compensation under section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sakkaravarthi For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader 1/4
W.P.(MD)No.18173 of 2025 B.Nagesh
...Petitioner
Vs
...Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to calling for the records to the impugned order his proceeding in Na.Ka.No.T1/14323/2011 dated 08.05.2025 issued by the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to refer the matter to the Reference Court for an enhancement of compensation under section 20 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sakkaravarthi For Respondent : Mr.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader COMMON ORDER The respective petitioner states that the property in S.Nos.589/1C, 589/2C, 588/1C of an extent of 393 sq. metre belonged to his father. The said property was acquired under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act for the formation of a subway. He further states that the final award was issued on 30.09.2016, but the petitioner had not received the same. At the last hearing, learned Additional Government Pleader had requested for a weeks' time to ascertain from the 2/4
records as to whether the respective petitioner had received the award and, if so, when such an award was received.
2.At today's hearing, learned Additional Government Pleader has produced the relevant records including the acknowledgement by the respective petitioner. Such acknowledgement discloses that the respective petitioner received the award on 14.05.2025. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respective petitioner's request for reference of the claim for enhanced compensation is time barred.
3.By the impugned orders, such request has been rejected solely on the ground that it was made belatedly. In fact, it is stated that it was made with a delay of more than 2 years. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and hereby set aside. As a corollary, the first respondent is directed to refer the matters to the competent court for consideration of the respective petitioner's request for enhanced compensation for the acquisition. 4.These writ petitions stand disposed of on these terms. No costs. 17.09.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR 3/4
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY , J.
RJR To W.P.(MD)Nos.18172 & 18173 of 2025 17.09.2025 4/4