Back
SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Tarsem Singh – Respondent
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.
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. 1
Acquisition of land – Constitutional guarantee of just compensation cannot be rendered contingent upon magnitude of financial burden – Mere escalation in projected liability, howsoever significant, d....
The Supreme Court affirmed that landowners are entitled to solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisitions made under the National Highways Act, following the unconstitutionalit....
Sections denying solatium and interest to landholders under the National Highways Act are unconstitutional; landowners are entitled to these benefits as per recent Supreme Court ruling.
The Supreme Court ruled Section 3-J of the National Highways Act unconstitutional, affirming landowners' right to solatium and interest, recognizing it as a constitutional obligation of the State.
The court ruled that completed acquisitions cannot be reopened or compensated under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, as finality under the National Highways Act, 1956 was achieved.
The more beneficial provision of Section 80 of the Act, 2013 relating to interest would apply to acquisitions made under the NH Act, and the court directed the respondents to pay the calculated inter....
The court upheld the applicability of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 to compensation determinations under the National Highways Act, affirming the Arbitrator's decision to enhance compensation based on resid....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
