National Highways Authority of India vs Tarsem Singh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 317

SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN
National Highways Authority of India – Appellant
Versus
Tarsem Singh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, AOR Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Khubaib Shakeel, Adv. Mr. Nirmal Prasad, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Sumit Gupta, Adv. Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, AOR Mr. Akshay Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Ms. Tanya Shrotriya, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kalsi, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Chhabra, Adv. Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neetica Sharma, Adv. Mr. Kanav Singhal, Adv. Mr. Tavinder Sidhu, Adv. Mr. A.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikas Soni, Adv. Mr. Sumit Gupta, Adv. For M/S. M.V. Kini & Associates, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Prakash Shinde, Adv. Mr. R.M. Patil, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta II, AOR Mr. Amit Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit S.Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Mrs. Anumita Verma, Adv. Mr. Arjun Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Arjun Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Pavani Verma, Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Yadav, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri, Adv. Mr. Yashwant Singh, AOR Mr. Mayank Sapre, Adv. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Tomy Chacko, AOR Ms. Tualia Rehman, Adv. Mr. PB Pradeep, Adv. Mr. Nd Joseph Antony, Adv. Mr. Pardeep Kumar Arya, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Goel, Adv. Ms. Yukta Goel, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Tushar M.Khairnar, AOR

Judgement Key Points

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) filed a Review Petition seeking to recall an order dated 04.02.2025 that had dismissed its application for clarification regarding the scope of the judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (Tarsem Singh-I) (!)
The NHAI challenged orders passed by High Courts of Bombay and Chhattisgarh which directed the payment of interest, solatium, and interest on solatium to landowners under the National Highways Act (!)
Section 3-J of the National Highways Act, 1956, introduced in 1997, excluded land acquisitions under this Act from the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, thereby denying landowners the benefit of 'solatium' and 'interest' (!)
High Courts, including those of Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana, and Madras, struck down or read down Section 3-J to the extent that it denied solatium and interest, aligning the compensation framework with the 1894 Act (!) (!)
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and subsequent notifications extended the compensatory regime to NH Act acquisitions from 01.01.2015 (!)
In Tarsem Singh-I, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that Section 3-J was unconstitutional to the extent it denied solatium and interest, extending these benefits to acquisitions between 1997 and 2015 (!)
In Tarsem Singh-II, the Court rejected NHAI's plea that the grant of solatium and interest would reopen concluded cases, clarifying that such entitlements are inherent in the right to just compensation under Article 300A (!)
The Court addressed NHAI's financial burden argument, noting that the cost would ultimately be borne by commuters and society, and thus could not justify denying constitutional rights (!)
NHAI contended in the Review Petition that the financial estimate of Rs. 100 crores cited in Tarsem Singh-II was a clerical error and the actual liability was approximately Rs. 29,000 crores (!)
The Court held that the escalation in financial liability does not constitute a valid ground for review or modification of the judgment, as fiscal implications cannot override substantive constitutional entitlements (!)
The Court clarified that while landowners are entitled to solatium and interest, claims made decades after the compensation quantum was finally determined must be balanced against the equities of delay (!)
Landowners whose claims regarding the quantum of compensation were alive on or after 28.03.2008 are entitled to seek addition of interest, solatium, and interest on solatium (!)
For claims alive on 28.03.2008 but where the specific request for solatium and interest was made after that date, no interest on these components shall be payable for the period of delay (!)
Landowners whose claims were conclusively settled prior to 28.03.2008 with no further appeals pending are not entitled to seek reopening or modification of the decision to claim solatium or interest (!)
The Court directed High Courts to set aside impugned judgments and remand matters for recalculation of interest, solatium, and interest on solatium in strict accordance with the issued directions (!)
It was clarified that the directions do not entitle the NHAI or the Union of India to seek refund or recovery of solatium or interest already paid to landowners (!)

Table of Content
1. nhai seeks to recall a dismissal order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. history of compensation framework under nh act. (Para 5)
3. legal necessity for equitable treatment of landowners. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. directions on compensation entitlement for landowners. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT

SURYA KANT, CJI.

1. The instant Review Petition has been filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for recalling our order dated 04.02.2025, passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 1773/2021 (Tarsem Singh-II).¹[ Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh and others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 235] Vide that order, this Court had dismissed NHAI’s application seeking clarification whether the Judgment dated 19.09.2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh and others (Tarsem Singh-I), (2019) 9 SCC 304 would apply prospectively.

2. Notably, several Special Leave Petitions preferred by the NHAI/its Project Director are also tagged with the instant Review Petition challenging different orders passed by the High Courts of Bombay and Chhattisgarh.

3. The High Courts, vide those orders, have, inter alia, directed NHAI and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

Union of India VS Tarsem Singh - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1041: This case declares "Provision of Section 3J of Act 1956 held unconstitutional," indicating that a key holding (denial of solatium and interest under the 1997 amendment to the National Highways Act, 1956) has been ruled invalid. This constitutes bad law as the provision it upheld or interpreted has been struck down, rendering its treatment of that provision no longer authoritative.

Govt. of NCT of Delhi through its Secretary VS K. L. Rathi Steels Limited - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 507: Describes a clarification by the court on review jurisdiction and finality of judgments, with no negative indicators. Language such as "the court clarified" suggests affirmative or followed treatment in subsequent analysis.

Sunita Mehra VS Union of India - 2016 0 Supreme(SC) 1371: Indicates the decision was shaped by external factors like a pending Supreme Court issue and dismissal of a similar petition, implying limited precedential value or non-binding status rather than broad authority. No explicit negative treatment, but context suggests distinction or narrow application.

[]

2026 Supreme(SC) 317

SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYANNational Highways Authority of India – AppellantVersusTarsem Singh – Respondent

Cases Referred (4)

Judicial Analysis

Related Judgments

National Highways Authority of India VS Tarsem Singh - 2026 3 Supreme 544

Union of India VS Tarsem Singh - 2025 Supreme(SC) 266

Ashutosh Agrawal S/o Late Shri Kumbhaj Lal Agrawal vs National Highway Authority of India, through Chairman - 2025 Supreme(Chh) 174

National Highway Authority of India VS Resham Singh - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 3346

Etti Gounder VS District Collector, Namakkal - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 1689

Satishbhai Viriyabhai Gamit vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(Guj) 1343

SMT GEETHA SHIVAMURTHY vs NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36892

SMT GEETHA SHIVAMURTHY vs NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 442858

Universal Construction Machinery and Equipment Limited VS National Highway Authority of India - 2023 Supreme(UK) 295

Government of India vs Bhajan Lal - 2025 Supreme(P&H) 1080

SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN
National Highways Authority of India – Appellant
Versus
Tarsem Singh – Respondent