The Madras High Court has overturned a single judge's order that had asked the Tamil Nadu government to reconsider releasing highway land acquired way back in 1974, after finding that the claim built around a disputed will and revenue records appeared to have been tampered with. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan allowed the State's appeal on September 3, 2026.
Background of the Case
The dispute goes back five decades. Land measuring 4.06 acres in Pattanam village, Coimbatore, belonging to brothers Ramasamy Konar and Kalimuthu Konar, was acquired in 1974 for the Coimbatore bypass on NH-47. An award was passed in 1978, compensation paid without protest, and possession handed over for road formation. Part of the land was used to build the bypass; the rest stayed vacant, earmarked for future widening.
Ramasamy Konar never contested the acquisition during his lifetime. He died in 2019. A person named V. Nagaraj then approached the writ court in 2020, claiming Konar had willed him the unused 3.36 acres in 2018, and that since compensation for this portion was never paid, the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law. Nagaraj too passed away during the case, and his legal heirs, Kuttammal, Hemalatha, N. Janani and N. Dharun Krishna, continued the litigation.
The State's Additional Advocate General, P.V. Balasubramaniam, told the court that the entire acquisition had been completed decades ago and that the original village records classified the land as Government Poramboke meant for "Highway" use. He alleged that the register produced by the petitioners had specific columns altered, with Konar's name inserted in place of "National Highway."
The Bench noted that a will must be proved under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act before any right can be claimed on its basis, and that the petitioners had not done so. It further held that once possession is taken and land put to use, an acquisition does not lapse merely because compensation for part of it went unpaid, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal.
The Court set aside the single judge's order and directed the District Collector, Coimbatore, to conduct a detailed enquiry into the missing case files and the altered land registers, and to lodge a police complaint against those responsible.
No costs were awarded.
