Murugesan Vs The Competent Authority and

Murugesan vs The Competent Authority and

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 25, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1416566

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1416566
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
Decided On: Mar 25, 2026
Case Number: WP/1476/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Murugesan

Respondent

The Competent Authority and

Excerpt

.....namely 30% solatium with interest till the day of payment, in the light judgment of hon’ble supreme court of india in the matter of union of india and another vs., tarsem singh and others, in civil appeal no.7064 of2019. however, the said representation was not considered, as on date. hence, this writ petition.3. learned additional government pleader appearing for the first respondent would submit that the petitioners’ representation dated 08.12.2021 will be considered within a period of 8 weeks. page2 of 44. heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.5. considering the limited relief sought by the learned counsel for thepetitioners, this court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the first respondent to dispose of the petitioners’ representation dated 08.12.2021, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. with the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. no costs. index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no vm to: authority, and special district revenue officer, (land acquisition), national highways-68 page3 of 4krishnan ramasamy, j.vm page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

1. Murugaesan

2. Munusami

3. Balamani

4. Shanmugam

5. Mohan

6. Saraswathi Palaniappan

7. Thirukumaran

8. Kalai Selvi

9. Selvaraj

10.Ponnusamy 11.Arumugam 12.Velayutham 13.Parthibhan 14.Umanath 15.Madahammal ..Petitioner(s) Vs Authority, and Special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition), National Highways-68, ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to disburse the Page1 of 4 statutory entitlement namely 30% Solatium with interest till the day of payment, in the light of judgment of Honourable 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 by considering petitioners representation dated 08.12.2021. For Petitioner(s) : Ms.A.Kalaiselvi for K.Sudhakar For Respondent(s): Ms.S.Indhu Bala, AGP for R1 Mr.Su.Srinivasan, SC for R2

ORDER

This writ petition is filed to direct the first respondent to consider the petitioners’ representation dated 08.12.2021.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners

have made a representation dated 08.12.2021 to disburse the statutory entitlement namely 30% solatium with interest till the day of payment, in the light judgment of Hon’ble 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 considered, as on date. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent would submit that the petitioners’ representation dated 08.12.2021 will be considered within a period of 8 weeks. Page2 of 4

4. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

5. Considering the limited relief sought by the learned counsel for the

petitioners, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directs the first respondent to dispose of the petitioners’ representation dated 08.12.2021, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No VM To: Authority, and special District Revenue Officer, (Land Acquisition), National Highways-68 Page3 of 4

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.

VM Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Murugesan vs The Competent Authority and Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy