Directing NHAI to Pay Statutory Solatium: Bombay High Court Rejects 'Alternate Remedy' Defense in Land Acquisition Disputes - 2026-06-02

Justice for Landowners: Bombay High Court Overrules NHAI’s Procedural Hurdles

In a significant verdict for thousands of landowners across Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court has cleared the path for the disbursement of long-overdue statutory compensation. The court ruled that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) cannot use procedural technicalities to deny victims of land acquisition their right to solatium and interest, effectively ending years of litigation.

The Background: A Battle for Fair Compensation

The dispute stems from the compulsory acquisition of land by the NHAI for national highway projects. While the petitioners were awarded base compensation, they were denied the statutory benefits of solatium and interest—additional financial protections mandated by the Right To Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 .

Following the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh (2019) , which affirmed that these statutory benefits must apply even to highway acquisitions, landowners sought relief. However, they found themselves trapped in a repetitive, circular litigation loop. After failing to receive these benefits through arbitral awards (where judges in Section 34 proceedings cited a previous High Court ruling, Rishabhkumar , as a bar to modification), petitioners turned to the Bombay High Court for a final resolution.

The "Alternate Remedy" Dispute

When these cases reached the High Court, the NHAI attempted to block the petitions, arguing that the landowners should have exhausted "alternate remedies" under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The High Court soundly rejected this tactic. Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that relegating petitioners to an appeal process that is already legally restricted by the Rishabhkumar precedent would be an exercise in futility. "There is no point in relegating the Petitioners to the remedy under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, when the relief they claim cannot be granted under such proceedings," the bench remarked.

Legal Analysis: The Limits of Precedent

The Court underscored that the constitutional power under Article 226 is designed to ensure justice isn't sacrificed at the altar of technicality. Drawing on M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd vs The Excise and Taxation officer , the court clarified that the existence of an alternate remedy does not strip the High Court of its jurisdiction, especially when the legal issue—the entitlement to solatium—is beyond dispute.

The bench emphasized that the NHAI’s stance was "extremely unfortunate and unfair," noting that the authority had previously acknowledged the validity of the petitioners' claims before the District Courts. By forcing thousands of citizens to pursue ineffective appeals, the Authority was merely delaying its mandatory statutory duties.

Key Observations

The judgment serves as a reminder of the binding nature of higher court rulings and the responsibility of statutory bodies:

• On Judicial Efficiency: "There is no point in relegating the Petitioners to the remedy under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, when the relief they claim cannot be granted under such proceedings."
• On Constitutional Duty: "Article 144 of the Constitution... provides that all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act to the aid of the Hon'ble Supreme Court."
• On NHAI’s Conduct: "The NHAI cannot take diversion stances. Ultimately, these are statutory benefits. The entitlement is never seriously disputed."
• On Writ Jurisdiction: "The rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies is a self-imposed restriction on exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

Final Decision: The Road Ahead

The Bombay High Court has ordered the NHAI to pay all outstanding statutory solatium and interest to the petitioners within four months. By issuing this direct mandate, the Court has not only provided immediate relief to the affected families but has also set a clear precedent: statutory entitlements under the law cannot be withheld through the strategic misuse of the appellate process. For many, this decision marks the end of a multi-year struggle to receive the fair market compensation they were promised.