Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 317

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Surya Kant, CJI, Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
National Highways Authority of India – Appellant
Versus
Tarsem Singh and others – Respondent
Review Petition (Civil) No. 2528 / 2025 in Miscellaneous Application No. 1773 / 2021 in
Civil Appeal No. 7064 / 2019 with with Civil Appeal No. 3884 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11628 of 2026) (Arising out of Diary No. 67885 / 2025) Civil Appeal No. 3885 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11629 of 2026) (Arising out of Diary No. 68010 / 2025) Civil Appeal No. 3886 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2507 / 2026) Civil Appeal No. 3886 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36306 / 2025) Civil Appeal No. 3888 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 37094 / 2025) Civil Appeal No. 3889 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2425 / 2026) Civil Appeal No. 3890 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 38641 / 2025) Civil Appeal No. 3891 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 52 / 2026) Civil Appeal No.3892 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 37666 / 2025) Civil Appeal No. 3893 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 38674 / 2025) Civil Appeal No. 3894 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 41 / 2026)
Decided On : 25-03-2026

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

IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land – Constitutional guarantee of just compensation cannot be rendered contingent upon magnitude of financial burden – Mere escalation in projected liability, howsoever significant, does not constitute, per se, a valid ground for review or modification of Judgment.

Headnote:
(A) National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3-G – Acquisition of land – Review Petition concerning issue of various landowners’ entitlement to ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ as part of compensation for land acquisition initiated by NHAI – Constitutional guarantee of just compensation cannot be rendered contingent upon magnitude of financial burden – Mere escalation in projected liability, howsoever significant, does not constitute, per se, a valid ground for review or modification of Judgment – Landowners who suffer acquisition of their land under NH Act are entitled to interest, solatium, and interest on solatium as part of their compensation – However, each claim for this entitlement cannot be treated in same way – In many cases, landowners have chosen to approach different authorities, like Competent Authority, Arbitrators, or Courts, for grant of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ decades after cases regarding quantum of land acquisition compensation for their lands stood closed – While, as a matter of legal principle, landowners may be entitled to solatium and interest, they cannot be permitted to reopen old, stale claims which have been decided conclusively by a court of law – Matters remanded to concerned High Courts with a request to recalculate ‘interest’, ‘solatium’, and ‘interest on solatium’ payable to landowners. (Paras 7, 10, 11, 12 and 16)
(B) National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3-G – Acquisition of land – Balancing equities,
(i) All landowners whose claims re: quantum and/or components of compensation for their lands acquired under NH Act were alive on or after 28.03.2008, i.e., they were pending before one of prescribed fora, shall be entitled to seek addition of ‘interest’, ‘solatium’, and ‘interest on solatium’ to their compensation claim;
(ii) In cases where compensation claims are alive on aforesaid date, but landowner has claimed ‘interest’, ‘solatium’, and ‘interest on solatium’ after 28.03.2008, no interest on both components shall be payable for period of delay--Such landowner shall be entitled to ‘interest’ and ‘interest on solatium’ only from the date on which such claims were raised;
(iii) If claims of landowners stood concluded prior to 28.03.2008, with no further appeal, Writ Petition, Special Leave Petition, etc., then such landowners are not entitled to seek reopening, review, or modification of said decision for the purpose of claiming ‘solatium’ or ‘interest’. (Para 14)
(C) Review – Once a Judgment or an order passed by a court in a particular case has attained finality and is not subject matter of further challenge before a prescribed forum, a subsequent change in judicial interpretation would not entail reversal of such decision inter-se parties to that case. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
Instant Review Petition has been filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for recalling Order dated 04.02.2025, passed in Miscellaneous Application No. 1773/2021 (Tarsem Singh-II). [Union ofIndia 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 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.
Findings of Court:
As a matter of abundant caution, however, it is clarified that these directions do not entitle NHAI or Union of India to seek refund or recovery of solatium or interest already paid to landowners.
Result : Review Petition disposed of.

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 its officers to pay (i) interest, (ii) solatium, (iii) and interest on the solatium, along with the statutory compensation, for acquisition of lands under the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act) in terms of Tarsem Singh-I and Tarsem Singh-II in a time-bound manner. NHAI’s grievance in these Special Leave Petitions appears to be that such directions ought not to have been issued in view of the pendency of the Review Petition against Tarsem Singh-II before this Court.

4. Be that as it may, since the survival of the claims raised in the adjoining Special Leave Petitions hinges on the outcome of this Review Petition, we shall first turn to adjudicate the latter on its merits.

A. BACKGROUND

5. To that end, given that this Review Petition constitutes the third round of litigation on the limited issue of various landowners’ entitlement to ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ as part of the compensation for land acquisition initiated by the NHAI, we do not deem it appropriate to delve into the entire legislative and judicial history of the matter. Suffice it would be to notice certain salient events:

5.1. In 1997, a fresh, comprehensive land acquisition framework was introduced into the NH Act. Included in this Amendment was Section 3 -J, stipulating that the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (1894 Act) in toto would not apply to acquisitions under the NH Act. A necessary by-product of this amendment was that the provisions of the 1894 Act granting ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ to land-losers would not apply to acquisitions initiated under the NH Act.

5.2. Section 3 -J held the field until the purported dissonance between the land acquisition compensatory schemes contemplated under the NH Act and the 1894 Act was agitated as being ex-facie illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of India before various High Courts.

5.3. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Lalita v. Union of India, New Delhi , 2002 SCC OnLine Kar 569 struck down Section 3 -J of the NH Act, holding it to be unconstitutional for perpetuating an arbitrary distinction, in opposition to the strict contours of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That ruling, however, was stayed by a Division Bench of the same High Court on 10.02.2003, while it was seized of the intra-court appeal preferred by the Union of India. The stay continued to operate till 15.10.2019, when the Writ Appeal was eventually dismissed by the High Court in terms of this Court’s Judgment in Tarsem Singh-I, which is elaborated upon later.

5.4. As stated earlier, similar challenges were made before other High Courts as well, resulting in two noteworthy decisions:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 317

Cases Referred (4)

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