Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 03 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: The State (represented by the Secretary to Government Public Works Department, District Collector Coimbatore, District Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Special Tahsildar, and the Project Director NHAI Coimbatore PIU) appealed against the petitioners – the legal heirs of the deceased V. Nagaraj (Kuttammal, Hemalatha, N Janani, N Dharun Krishna) and the National Highways Authority of India (respondent).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Intra‑Court appeal (W.A.No.1638 of 2026) against the order dated 27 Oct 2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6802 of 2020, which had directed the State to reconsider whether the subject land was required for the notified public purpose and, if so, to pay compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the “New Act”).
  • Background:
  • In 1974 the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a notification (G.O.Rt.No.2491 PWD, dated 11 Sep 1974, Gazette 13 Nov 1974) under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire 21.22 acres for an outer‑ring bypass road on NH‑47.
  • The specific parcel in Survey No. 183/1, Pattanam village, comprised 4.06 acres owned by the late Ramasamy Konar (3.56 acres) and his brother Kalimuthu Konar (0.50 acre).
  • Enquiry under Section 5A was held on 06 Jan 1975; declaration under Section 6 issued on 21 Feb 1976; award enquiry under Section 11 on 24 Apr 1976; Award No. 2 passed on 20 Jan 1978.
  • Compensation: Rs 5,117.50 to Ramasamy Konar (3.56 acres) and Rs 718.75 to Kalimuthu Konar (0.50 acre), paid without protest (cheque No. 942001 dated 27 Jan 1978).
  • Possession was handed to the Divisional Engineer, National Highways, on 21 Jan 1978; a road was formed over 0.71 cents, the remaining 3.36 acres kept vacant for future highway expansion.
  • Petitioners’ Claim: Relying on an alleged will dated 15 Nov 2018 executed by the late Ramasamy Konar in favour of V. Nagaraj, the petitioners asserted that the remaining 3.36 acres were never compensated nor possessed and therefore, under Section 24(2) of the New Act, the acquisition proceedings had lapsed. They sought a declaration of lapse and release of the land.
  • State’s Contentions: The acquisition was completed in 1978, compensation was paid, possession taken, and the land was used for the outer‑ring road; the petitioners lacked locus standi and the will was unproved. The State also alleged fabrication of records by the petitioners, pointing out that the original district file classified the land as “Government Poramboke – Highway”.
  • Additional Solicitor General’s Submissions: Confirmed that the acquisition, award, and possession were valid; the fact that a portion of land remained vacant did not trigger lapse under the New Act; no statutory discretion exists to release land merely because part is unused.
  • Legal Precedents Cited:
  • Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020 (8) SCC 129) – acquisition does not lapse merely because one of the conditions (possession or compensation) is not fulfilled; the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 24(2) is binding.
  • V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer (2012 12 SCC 133) – courts may impose costs and direct inquiries where false affidavits are filed to mislead the court.
  • Evidence Reviewed: Original district records, UDR A‑Register showing the land classified as Government Poramboke, compensation cheques, award statements, check‑memorandum, and various statutory forms (Form‑AA, Form‑C, etc.). The petitioners’ register entries had been altered to insert the name of Ramasamy Konar in place of “National Highway”.
  • Findings on Record‑Keeping: The court noted that the original acquisition files were difficult to locate, were allegedly misplaced by officials, and that a status report indicated the files were handed over to the Government Pleaders’ office in March 2021 and subsequently went missing. An inquiry by the District Collector was ordered to trace the missing files and investigate alleged fabrication.

Final Outcome

  • The order dated 27 Oct 2025 directing the State to reconsider compensation or release the land is set aside.
  • The intra‑Court appeal is allowed; the petitioners’ claim that the acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the New Act is rejected.
  • No costs are awarded.
  • The District Collector, Coimbatore, is directed to conduct a thorough enquiry into the disappearance and alleged manipulation of acquisition records and to lodge a complaint against any persons found responsible, with appropriate law‑enforcement action.
  • The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Topics: Land Acquisition; Judicial Review; Government Property