Under Article 226 of the Constitution, can a writ court entertain a challenge to an unauthorized deduction from land acquisition compensation despite an available statutory reference remedy?

Yes. The availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not strip the writ court of jurisdiction under Article 226 where the State authority has committed a patent error of law by making an unauthorized statutory deduction. Where the baseline market value is undisputed and the only dispute pertains to the unauthorized deduction, relegating landowners to a reference court would be a miscarriage of justice.

Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 — Land acquisition — Compensation — Development charges — Theory of deduction — Linear acquisition exception — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.23 — Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s.26 — Article 226 of the Constitution of India — Writ jurisdiction — Alternative remedy — Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s.23 — Theory of deduction — Inapplicable to linear road and bridge acquisition — Held: The theory of deduction for development charges applies only where land is acquired for spatial development such as housing colonies or industrial layouts requiring internal roads, parks and civic amenities to be carved out. Where land is acquired for a linear road and bridge project, the entire acquired strip is itself consumed by the public infrastructure and no deduction for development charges is permissible. (¶7, 10) Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 — Linear acquisition — Widening versus formation of new link road — No distinction — Held further: The linear acquisition exception is not confined to widening of an existing road; formation of a new link road and bridge is equally linear in character since the entire acquired path is consumed by the infrastructure project. The attempt to narrow the exception to mere widening cuts no ice. (¶11) Constitution of India — Article 226 — Writ jurisdiction — Alternative statutory remedy no bar to unauthorized deduction — Held further: The availability of a statutory reference mechanism does not oust writ jurisdiction where the State has committed a patent error of law by making an unauthorized deduction, particularly where the baseline market value is undisputed and only the legality of the deduction is in issue. Relegating landowners to a reference court in such circumstances would occasion a miscarriage of justice. (¶14) Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 — Compensation — 33.33% deduction unsustainable — Full and fair compensation — Held further: Constitutional equity demands that citizens surrendering property for a linear road and bridge project receive full, undiminished and fair compensation; a one-third deduction towards development charges in such acquisition is wholly unsustainable in law. Writ appeals dismissed and the Single Judge's order affirmed, with the appellants directed to refund the deducted 33.33% within four weeks. (¶15)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of State of Tamil Nadu v. M. Manickam — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India