The Supreme Court has directed the Tamil Nadu authorities and Southern Railway to proceed with utmost expedition to implement a long-pending Limited Use Subway (LUS) project at Level Crossing No. 81 in Vaniyambadi, Tirupattur district, observing that the project, which has remained under consideration for almost two decades, has now reached a stage materially closer to execution.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta disposed of the civil appeal after taking on record detailed assurances placed before the Court regarding land acquisition, approvals, tendering and the proposed execution schedule. The Court declined to keep the proceedings pending merely for continuous judicial monitoring, but issued specific directions requiring the authorities to complete the remaining statutory and administrative processes without avoidable delay.

Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026

The dispute concerns Level Crossing No. 81 at Vaniyambadi, located between Vaniyambadi and Kethandapatti Railway Stations. The railway line divides the eastern and western portions of Vaniyambadi town, making the crossing an important route for residents and commuters moving between the two sides.

The project was originally conceived as a Road Over Bridge (ROB). In November 2007, the Government of Tamil Nadu granted administrative sanction for construction of the ROB at an estimated cost of ₹13 crore on a cost-sharing basis with Southern Railway.

However, subsequent examination revealed that construction of the ROB would require substantial land acquisition in a heavily built-up area and would involve significantly higher costs. The authorities therefore considered an alternative Road Under Bridge (RUB).

The project subsequently underwent several changes. The State Government formally changed its nomenclature from ROB to RUB in December 2019 and initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 in January 2021.

Following further examination and a joint inspection by officials of the State Highways Department and Southern Railway, the authorities again modified the project and proposed a Limited Use Subway in place of the RUB.

The revised proposal contemplated acquisition of approximately 5,009 square metres, substantially reducing the land requirement. The alignment of the LUS was approved, and the State Government subsequently sanctioned the change from RUB to LUS through G.O. (Ms.) No. 84 dated May 15, 2025.

The authorities thereafter began steps for the necessary land acquisition and approvals. However, concerned about the pace of implementation, the petitioner approached the Madras High Court seeking directions for expediting construction and completing the project within a stipulated timeframe.

The Madras High Court, in its July 25, 2025 judgment, noted that land acquisition proceedings were still pending before the State Government. It declined to keep the writ petition pending merely to monitor construction of the proposed LUS and disposed of the proceedings.

Aggrieved by the absence of a specific judicial direction prescribing a completion timeframe, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, however, the authorities placed updated material concerning the status of the project, including land acquisition, approvals, tender proceedings and the proposed timelines for execution.

The Supreme Court noted that the project had moved beyond the stage of merely being under consideration and that concrete steps had been initiated towards implementation. The State Government had clarified that the land acquisition proceedings were to proceed pursuant to the May 15, 2025 Government Order, which had been communicated to the concerned land acquisition authority on February 26, 2026.

A significant development before the Supreme Court was the progress made by Southern Railway with respect to its portion of the project.

Southern Railway informed the Court that a tender had been floated for construction of its portion of the LUS and that seven bidders had participated. The tender was expected to be finalised by the second week of August 2026.

The Railway further stated that, after award of the contract and subject to the State Government making the necessary land available for the approach portion and casting of the boxes, the work falling within its domain could be completed within six months from the date of award of the contract.

The State authorities also informed the Court that the Railway portion had reached the award stage, while land acquisition, designs, estimates and approvals relating to the Highways portion were simultaneously being processed.

The Court observed that, in view of the developments and specific statements made before it, the controversy had substantially narrowed.

Although the Court did not impose a single overall completion deadline for the entire project, it directed the authorities to move forward expeditiously and in coordination with each other.

The State authorities were specifically directed to complete the pending land acquisition proceedings and all other approvals and processes within their domain with utmost expedition. They were also required to ensure that the requisite land was made available to Southern Railway without avoidable delay so that the Railway’s portion of the LUS was not held up.

Southern Railway, in turn, was directed to finalise the tender process within the timeline represented to the Court. Once the contract was awarded and the requisite land became available, the Railway was directed to complete the work falling within its domain within six months from the date of award.

At the same time, the State authorities were directed to proceed simultaneously with the designs, estimates, administrative approvals and other requirements relating to the Highways portion, so that the project did not suffer further avoidable delays.

The Court also retained a mechanism to ensure accountability without keeping the appeal pending for continuous monitoring.

Respondent authorities were directed to file compliance affidavits after completion of the work falling within their respective domains and, in any event, within eight months from the date of the judgment. The affidavits must set out the steps taken to comply with the directions issued by the Court.

Thus, while the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, it ensured that the assurances made before it were formally placed on record and coupled with a reporting requirement.

An important aspect of the judgment is the Supreme Court’s appreciation of the sustained efforts undertaken by the petitioner.

The Court recorded that the petitioner had consistently pursued the issue concerning Level Crossing No. 81 and the proposed grade-separated crossing over several years. It noted that the effort was not shown to be motivated by personal benefit but was directed towards securing relief for residents and commuters of Vaniyambadi.

The Court observed that the petitioner had approached government authorities and constitutional courts on multiple occasions and had continued pursuing the issue until the project reached its present stage.

The judgment also contains broader observations on genuine public-interest litigation and constructive civic participation.

The Court noted that constitutional courts are frequently called upon to deal with proceedings styled as public interest litigation which, upon scrutiny, may not advance a genuine public cause. The present matter, however, was found to stand on a different footing.

According to the Court, the case demonstrated how a vigilant and bona fide citizen can, through sustained and responsible engagement with public authorities and constitutional courts, bring attention to an issue affecting the community at large. The Court expressly observed that such constructive civic participation deserves acknowledgment.

The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that, given the subsequent progress and definite assurances furnished by the authorities, there was no useful purpose in keeping the appeal pending merely to continuously monitor the execution of the project.

The Court made it clear that the statements and assurances made before it were being taken on record and were required to be duly complied with.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: 2 Year Bar on Advocate for Breaching Client Confidentiality Upheld: Supreme Court