1. Application seeking clarification on the prospective or retrospective application of a judgment declaring Section 3J of the NHAI Act unconstitutional regarding solatium and interest. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 266
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Union of India and another – Appellants
Versus
Tarsem Singh and others – Respondents
IN THE MATTER OF Project Director, National Highways Authority of India – Applicant
Miscellaneous Application No. 1773/2021 in Civil Appeal No. 7064 of 2019
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1473-1541 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3315-3383 of 2025 @ Diary No. 37767/2022) CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9919/2023) CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15538/2023) CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15581/2023) CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15653/2023) CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15747/2023) CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2025 @ Diary No.38417/2023) CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2025 @ Diary No. 52538/2023) CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14942/2019) CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF /2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. /2025 @ Diary No. 21226/2022) CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. /2025 @ Diary No. 38093/2024)
Decided On : 04-02-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Adv. Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, AOR Ms. Manvi Damle, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivasatava, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Shivang Goel, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.r, AOR Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mrs. Binita Jaiswal, Adv. M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Ms. T. Archana, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR Mr. C U Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. P Sivakumar, Adv. Mr. Y Arunagiri, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Adv. Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Ms. Jay Jaimini Pandey, Adv. Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, Adv. Ms. Surajita Pattanaik, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Meghraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Yash Pandey, Adv. Mr. Manmonhan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Goel, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Garima Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Adv. Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, AOR Ms. Manvi Damle, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Shivang Goel, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Vimal Kumar Goyal, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh Dingra, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Varun Varma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. D.kumanan, AOR Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Mr. Parth Sarathi, Adv. Mrs. Anumita Verma, Adv. Mr. Arjun Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Mittal, AOR Mr. Deepak Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Varshney, Adv. Mr. Darshan Sejwal, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Shilpa G Mittal, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma, AOR Mr. Raghuvir Singh Patil, Adv. Mr. Suryanusen Gupta, Adv. Mr. Dhrubajit Saikia, Adv. Mr. Sudhansu Palo, AOR Ms. Suman, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Palo, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Palo, Adv. Mr. S. C. Malhotra, Adv. Mrs. Ipsita Behura, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Adv. Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, AOR Ms. Manvi Damle, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivasatava, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Shivang Goel, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.r, AOR Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mrs. Binita Jaiswal, Adv. M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Ms. T. Archana, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR Mr. C U Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. P Sivakumar, Adv. Mr. Y Arunagiri, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Adv. Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Ms. Jay Jaimini Pandey, Adv. Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, Adv. Ms. Surajita Pattanaik, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Meghraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Yash Pandey, Adv. Mr. Manmonhan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Goel, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Garima Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Adv. Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, AOR Ms. Manvi Damle, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Shivang Goel, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Vimal Kumar Goyal, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh Dingra, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Varun Varma, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. D.kumanan, AOR Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Mr. Parth Sarathi, Adv. Mrs. Anumita Verma, Adv. Mr. Arjun Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Mittal, AOR Mr. Deepak Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Varshney, Adv. Mr. Darshan Sejwal, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Shilpa G Mittal, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Somiran Sharma, AOR Mr. Raghuvir Singh Patil, Adv. Mr. Suryanusen Gupta, Adv. Mr. Dhrubajit Saikia, Adv. Mr. Sudhansu Palo, AOR Ms. Suman, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Palo, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Palo, Adv. Mr. S. C. Malhotra, Adv. Mrs. Ipsita Behura, Adv.
The Supreme Court held that the judgment in Tarsem Singh, declaring Section 3J of the NHAI Act unconstitutional, applies retrospectively. Landowners whose lands were acquired between 1997 and 2015 are entitled to 'solatium' and 'interest' to ensure parity and prevent discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
(1) National Highways Act, 1956 -- S. 3J -- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Ss. 23 and 28 -- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 -- Ss. 30 and 80 -- solatium and interest -- applicability of judgment dated 19.9.2019 passed in the case of Tarsem Singh [(2019) 9 SCC 304] -- application seeking clarification that decision in Tarsem Singh should be deemed to operate prospectively only -- held -- granting such clarification would effectively nullify the very relief that Tarsem Singh intended to provide -- prospective operation would restore state of affairs to same position as it was before decision was rendered -- it would create a situation where a landowner whose land was acquired on 31.12.2014 would be denied benefit of solatium and interest, whereas a landowner whose land was acquired the very next day, i.e., on 1.1.2015 when the Ordinance was promulgated, would be entitled to these statutory benefits -- decision in Tarsem Singh merely allows grant of solatium or interest, which are inherently embedded as compensatory benefits under an expropriating legislation -- this exercise cannot be equated to reopening of cases or revisiting decisions that have already attained finality -- similarly, restoration of these twin benefits does not invite reconsideration of merits of a decided case, re-evaluation of compensation amount, or potentially declaring acquisition process itself to be unlawful -- applicant seeks to, indirectly, evade responsibility and further delay the resolution of a settled issue where the directions given are unequivocal -- what cannot be done directly should also not be done indirectly -- reaffirmed principles established in Tarsem Singh regarding beneficial nature of granting solatium and interest while emphasising need to avoid creating unjust classifications lacking intelligible differentia -- appeals disposed of with direction to competent authority to calculate amount of solatium and interest in accordance with directions issued in Tarsem Singh. (2019) 9 SCC 304, 2002 SCC Online Kar. 569, 2011 (4) RCR (Civil) 375 (P&H), 2011 SCC Online Mad. 2881, (2019) 17 SCC 672 and Writ Appeals No. 62-81 of 2019 (Mad.) discussed. 2023:PHHC: 053158-DB and Gurpreet (2006) 8 SCC 457 referred to. [Paras 17, 19, 21, 22, 25 & 26
(2) Practice -- provision declared unconstitutional -- any continued disparity that strikes at core of Art. 14 must be rectified -- particularly when such disparity affects only a select group. [Para 19
(3) Practice -- absence of judicial directive or explicit legislative mandate should not result in creation of artificial classification among homogeneous group by the same State exercising powers under the same statute -- both equity and equality demand that no such discrimination be permitted -- allowing it would be unjust. [Para 20
(4) Practice -- what cannot be done directly should also not be done indirectly -- practice of filing Miscellaneous Applications as a strategic litigation tactic aimed at neutralising judicial decisions and seeking second opportunity for relief -- disapproved. [Para 22
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
-
The primary issue addressed is whether the judgment regarding the entitlement to 'solatium' and 'interest' in land acquisition cases under the NHAI Act should be applied prospectively or retrospectively (!) (!) .
-
The court reaffirmed that the judgment in question was intended to resolve disparities created by a specific statutory provision that treated similarly situated individuals differently, which was found to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that declaring the judgment as prospective would undermine its purpose, which was to ensure parity among landowners affected by the land acquisition process, particularly those whose lands were acquired between 1997 and 2015 (!) (!) .
-
It was clarified that the benefits of 'solatium' and 'interest' are inherently compensatory and should be granted without delay or discrimination, and that the finality of previous decisions should not be disturbed through retrospective application (!) .
-
The court rejected the request for clarification to restrict the judgment's application to prospective cases, viewing such a move as an attempt to evade liability and delay justice (!) (!) .
-
The court highlighted that the exercise of granting 'solatium' and 'interest' does not amount to reopening finalized cases or revisiting the merits of previous decisions, but rather ensures statutory benefits are extended to eligible landowners (!) .
-
The court also noted that the financial burden argument presented by the applicant does not justify a departure from the established legal position, especially considering the broader constitutional and societal implications (!) .
-
Ultimately, the court dismissed the miscellaneous application seeking clarification, reaffirmed the principles of equitable treatment, and directed authorities to calculate 'solatium' and 'interest' in accordance with the original judgment (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with related legal questions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. NHAI argues for prospective application to prevent reopening closed cases and financial burden; landowners argue for retrospective application to ensure parity and avoid Article 14 violations. (Para 13 , 14 )
3. Prospective application would create an artificial, discriminatory classification among similarly situated landowners, violating Article 14, and granting compensatory benefits does not contravene the doctrine of immutability. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
4. A declaration of unconstitutionality must rectify disparities to prevent hostile discrimination under Article 14, particularly when an artificial classification is created within a homogeneous group. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
5. Miscellaneous Application dismissed; directions issued to calculate solatium and interest in accordance with the precedent in Tarsem Singh. (Para 25 , 26 )
6. Does the judgment in Tarsem Singh apply prospectively or retrospectively regarding the grant of solatium and interest?
It applies retrospectively. Prospective application would create an artificial classification and hostile discrimination under Article 14 between landowners whose lands were acquired just before and after the 2013 Act's applicability. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
7. Does granting solatium and interest to landowners in closed cases violate the doctrine of immutability?
No. Granting these compensatory benefits does not equate to reopening cases or revisiting decisions that attained finality, as it does not involve re-evaluating compensation amounts or the lawfulness of the acquisition process. (Para 21 )
8. Can financial burden on the public exchequer justify the prospective application of a judgment correcting a constitutional violation?
No. Financial burden cannot justify the denial of constitutional mandates under Article 300A or the creation of discriminatory classifications, especially when such costs are ultimately borne by project proponents or commuters. (Para 23 )
ORDER
SURYA KANT, J.
1. The instant Miscellaneous Application, filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) through its Project Director, seeks clarification regarding the judgment dated 19.09.2019, passed in Civil Appeal No. 7064 of 2019, titled Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh & Ors, (2019) 9 SCC 304 to the extent that the aforementioned judgment is to be applied prospectively, thereby precluding the reopening of cases where land acquisition proceedings have already been completed and the determination of compensation had also attained finality.
2. This Miscellaneous Application is tagged with several appeals filed by the NHAI challenging the decisions of various High Courts at the instance of private parties, wherein relief has been granted relying on the judgment dated 19.09.2019. The High Courts vide these decisions have either (i) awarded ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ to the expropriated landowners; or (ii) directed the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition, National Highways) to consider and decide representations made by the landowners for the grant of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ in light of the aforementioned judgment of this Court. This also includes SLP (C) No. 14942/2019 titled ‘ K. Raju and others v. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India and others ’, which has been preferred by a private party assailing the decision of the Madras High Court dated 01.04.2019, whereby the relief of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ was directed to be raised before the Competent Authority.
3. Additionally, SLP (C) Diary No. 52538/2023 titled ‘Raj Kumar and another v. Union of India and others’, has been preferred by a private party whose lands were acquired by NHAI. In this instance, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected their claim for the award of ‘Additional Market Value’ relying upon its decision in National Highway Authority of India v. Resham Singh, 2023:PHHC:053158-DB whereby the landowners were held entitled to ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’, but their claim for the grant of ‘Additional Market Value’ was declined. These benefits were granted / partly declined in terms of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act), which were read into the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NHAI Act).
A. BRIEF LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
4. At this juncture, it is pertinent to briefly delve into the legislative background of Section 3J of the NHAI Act vis-à-vis the 1894 Act and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).
5. The erstwhile 1894 Act facilitated the acquisition of land by the Government for public purposes, outlining a process that included the identification of land, issuance of a notification announcing the intent to acquire, followed by inquiries and hearings to determine the compensation payable to landowners. Additionally, the 1894 Act provided for the grant of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ under Sections 23 and 28. For a considerable period, the NHAI Act operated alongside the 1894 Act, with its provisions being pari materia to those of the latter.
6. Be that as it may, Section 3J of the NHAI Act has been fraught with controversy from its very inception. Section 3J, along with several other provisions, were inserted into the NHAI Act vide the National Highways Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997 (1997 Amendment), with the objective of ‘creating an environment to promote private investment in National Highways, to speed up construction of highways and to remove bottlenecks in their proper management’. In this regard, one of the impediments to the speedy implementation of highway projects was recognised to be the inordinate delay in the acquisition of land.
7. Accordingly, the NHAI Act was amended, with a number of measures undertaken to accelerate the procedure of acquisition, whereby a determination of compensation would be made by the Competent Authority, and if not accepted by either party, it would then be
