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 unconstitutionality of Section 3J.

Order :

(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)

Question of law involved:-

1. The short question of law involved in this batch of two Writ Petitions is as under:-

“Whether the Petitioners herein, whose lands were acquired on 22.9.2012 under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 are entitled for the amount of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ as provided in Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was interdicted by legislative bar created in shape of Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, which stood declared unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Another v . Tarsem Singh and Others, (2019) 9 SCC 304 and further clarified in Union of India and Another v . Tarsem Singh and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 235.

Relevant facts, in brief:-

2. In W.P.(C) No.316/2020, lands bearing Survey Nos.1460/2 & 1460/4, area 4,890 sq. mtrs., were acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (for brevity, NHAI) for widening of NH-200. Similarly, in W.P.(C) No.328/2020, land bearing Survey Nos.1460/1, area 1,670 sq. mtrs., was acquired by the NHAI for widening of NH-200. In both the cases, acquisition commenced on 31-5- 2011 and final awards were passed on 22-9-2012 vide Annexures P-9 & P-11. In Award dated 22-9- 2012 (Annexure P-9), in respect of W.P.(C) No.316/2020, market value of land was determined as Rs.5,53,62,816/- and in award dated 22-9-2012 (Annexure P-11), in respect of W.P.(C) No.328/2020, market value of land was determined as Rs.79,56,864/-. However, there is no dispute between the parties regarding market value as determined in the awards. Although the petitioners in both the cases claimed solatium @ 30% of the market value under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, Act of 1894) along with additional amount @ 12% of the market value under Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1894 with statutory interest under Section 28 of the said Act of 1894, the awards are silent and the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (for brevity, CALA), Simga did not consider the claims of the Petitioners. However, on 19-9-2019, Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for brevity, Act of 1956) was struck down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh¹ and immediately thereafter the Petitioners submitted representation on 22-10-2019 followed by demand of justice notice dated 13-12-2019. Since there was total inaction in case of the Petitioners and since the Respondent/NHAI did not take any action, the Petitioners herein filed Writ Petitions on 13-1-2020 stating inter alia that on account of the fact that Section 3J of the Act of 1956 interdicting the payment of solatium and interest was struck down by the Supreme Court, the Petitioners are entitled for the amount of solatium and interest. It has been pleaded that non-payment of solatium and interest and denial of aforesaid claim would directly amount to defying the judgment and authority of the Supreme Court and thus, the Petitioners have claimed such amount. Total claim made by the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.316/2020 is Rs.5,28,28,061/- and total claim made by the Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.328/2020 is Rs.75,90,870/-. It has been prayed that appropriate direction be issued to the authorities to release the amount of solatium and interest payable to the Petitioners as per claim mentioned in paragraph 9.6 of the Writ Petitions with costs along with future interest till the date of payment.

3. Return has been filed on behalf of the Respondent/NHAI stating inter alia that the Petitioners’ writ petitions seeking solatium and interest in their awarded compensation amount in view of Sections 23(1A), 23(2) & 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not maintainable in law, as alternative and efficacious statutory remedy for the purpose of speedy redressal of their grievances relating to compensation amount has been incorporated in the Act of 1956 in shape of