Madras High Court
CONT P/157/2026 of Jeeva Paulraj Vs Kannan on 30 September 2026
CONT P No. 157 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CONT P No. 157 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012161252025}
Jeeva Paulraj
Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Kannan
The Special District Revenue Officer,
and Competent Authority, Land
Acquisition (National Highways),
Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur District,
Kancheepuram.
2.Mr.Ravindra Rao,
Project Director, National Highways
Authority of India, Plot No.156,
Srinivasan Street, Opposite to Scope
Global School, GG Nagar, Mogappair
East, Chennai - 600 037. (Suo motu
impleaded as 2nd Respondent as per the
Order of the Hon'ble Court made in
Cont.P.No.157/2026, dated 01.09.2026)
Contemnor(s)
PRAYER
To issue summons to the respondent (contemnor) and punish him for wantonly disobeying the orders dated 10.02.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.33707 of 2007.
CONT P No. 157 of 2026
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.N.R.Anantha Rama Krishna
For Contemnor(s):
Mr.M.Sivavarthanan
Special Government Pleader
for R1
Mrs.S.R.Sumathy
Standing Counsel
for R2
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Pursuant to the earlier order passed on 30.09.2026, it is brought to the notice of this Court that a sum of Rs.52,36,423/- has already been transferred to the bank account of the petitioner.
2. An additional affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent as a clarification to the earlier query posed by this Court on 30.09.2026 and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:
6. I submit that the calculations submitted by the Petitioner do not account for the deduction of RS. 4,57,014/- (paid towards the 10% land appreciation under Section 3G(2) of the NH Act, 1956) which the Petitioner is not entitled to as per the judgment in the Tarsem Singh case. As per the instructions issued by MORTH vide Letter No. NH-11011/85/2022-LA dated 10.08.2026 (enclosed herewith) under para No.4.(ii) regarding the 'Adiustment of additional compensation paid under any provision' states that " 4. (i) Any amount paid by the CALA to the land owner under Section 3G(2) of the NH Act, 1956 towards easement
CONT P No. 157 of 2026 rights shall be adjusted as a first charge at the stage of initial computation of compensation, by deducting the same from the total compensation determined (in accordance with para 36 of Judgement dated 19.09.2019 in Tarsem Singh matter)”.
7. Accordingly, the solatium-30% worked out by the Petitioner for Rs. 17,93,023/- on the total value of land and structure of Rs. 59,76,743/- will be RS. 13,36,008.90/- after deducting the amount already paid (i.e Rs. 4,57,014/- which is the difference between the amount paid to the Petitioner as per the Award dated: 10.11.2006 for Rs. 64,33,757/- and Rs. 59,76,743/-) The Interest if calculated on Rs. 13,36,008.90 will be Rs. 39,00,413.93/- (For 9% interest for the period from 10.11.2006 to 09.11.2007 will be Rs. 1,20,240.80/- + 15% of interest for the period from 10.11.2007 to 15.09.2026, i.e., 6885 days will be Rs. 37,80,173.13/-.) and the total amount due for compensation is Rs.52,36,423/- only.
3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the National Highways Authority of India also relied upon the instructions issued by the Ministry of Road Transport dated 10.8.2026, wherein at clause 4(ii) it is stated that any amount paid to the land owner under 3G (2) of the National Highways Act towards easement rights therein adjusted at the stage of initial computation of compensation, by deducting the same from the total compensation.
4. The above clarification/instruction has been given presumably by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Tarsem Singh case.
CONT P No. 157 of 2026
5. On a careful reading of the judgment in Tarseem Singh case reported in 2019 9 SCC 304, this Court does not find that the Apex Court has provided for any such restriction for payment of compensation falling under easement rights. Paragraphs 44 and 45 of the judgment makes this position clear.
6. In view of the above, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the National Highways Authority of India, has to necessarily clarify this Court as to how such an instruction was given when there is nothing found in the Tarseem Singh judgment that has been referred thereto.
7. Post this case under the same caption on 3.11.2026 at 2.15 p.m. 13-10-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No kp
CONT P No. 157 of 2026 To
1. Kannan The Special District Revenue Officer, and Competent Authority, Land Acquisition (National Highways), Kancheepuram and Tiruvallur District, Kancheepuram.
2. Mr.Ravindra Rao, Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Plot No.156, Srinivasan Street, Opposite to Scope Global School, GG Nagar, Mogappair East, Chennai - 600 037.
CONT P No. 157 of 2026 N.ANAND VENKATESH J. kp CONT P No. 157 of 2026
13-10-2026