When government acquisition of private lands is backed by a statutory mandate, subserved by public purpose and accompanied by the provisions of fair compensation; the hardships or personal conveniences of individual landowners cannot be allowed to stall projects of nationwide priority, the Madras High Court said on Monday (June 22, 2026).

Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan made the observation while dismissing a writ appeal filed by K. Sampath, whose lands had been acquired for laying a broad gauge railway line between Morappur and Dharmapuri. He had challenged the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997.

The appellant told the court that the officials had originally intended to acquire 1.02.92 hectares of his land for the project. However, the alignment was thereafter changed and they decided to acquire only 0.26.00 hectares from him. Nevertheless, he complained there were ambiguities regarding the exact extent of the layout and the specifications in the final notification.

The court was told the failure to provide a clear layout plan had severely handicapped the appellant’s ability to utilise or alienate the unacquired portion of his agricultural holding. On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan assured the court a corrigendum would be issued to the final notification incorporating exhaustive details of the exact land sought to be acquired.

After recording the ASG’s submission, the judges said, no surviving prejudice could be legitimately claimed by the appellant in view of the undertaking given by the law officer representing the Southern Railway. The Bench also stated that Justice Krishnan Ramasamy had rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant by considering the public importance of the railway project.

“The project under execution, viz., the creation of a new broad gauge railway line linking Morappur with Dharmapuri, is an infrastructure project of paramount public interest. It is a trite that individual interest must yield to the larger public good, provided the acquisition follows the due process of law... In the absence of mala fides or patent perversity, this court cannot substitute its own views for the considered wisdom of the experts who calibrate alignments based on structural stability, safety parameters and optimal public utility,” the Division Bench wrote.