Quick Summary: Pushpalatha's fight for better payment for her land, taken for a highway in Cuddalore, faces a setback as the court directs her to look for a solution elsewhere.
On January 20, 2026, the High Court of Madras, led by Judge Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, handled a case involving Pushpalatha. She filed a complaint against the District Collector of Cuddalore, who also acted as a decision-maker, and the Special District Revenue Officer from Villupuram. The issue was about the payment for her land, which was taken under the National Highways Act, 1956.
Pushpalatha was unhappy with the amount of money decided for her land. She believed it was unfair and wanted it increased, along with the required benefits. Her complaint aimed to cancel the order dated October 28, 2023, which she found illegal and unjust.
"The person who complained had approached the District Collector acting as a decision-maker under the law."
The court, however, did not accept Pushpalatha's complaint. Judge Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy pointed out that the National Highways Act requires using the rules of the Arbitration Act. This means that Pushpalatha should challenge the decision under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
"The solution given in the Arbitration Act for challenging a decision is applicable."
The court advised Pushpalatha to take her case to the local District Court. This means she still has a chance to continue her case, but through a different legal path.
Pushpalatha's request for a higher payment was not accepted by the court. However, she can still challenge the decision by taking her case to a different court, following the procedures outlined in the Arbitration Act.
