The petitioner is entitled to solatium and interest for land acquisition following the Supreme Court's ruling declaring Section 3-J of the National Highways Act unconstitutional.

Order :

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:-

“A. The respondent land acquisition officer, sub divisional officer, Rohet may be directed to determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894, with interest till date on excess amount, within a specific time.

B. The respondents may kindly be directed to re- determine the award dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure-1) in so far as it declines award of solatium and interest in terms of the provisions of section 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894.

C. The respondents may be directed to comply with the Guidelines laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

D. The respondents may kindly be directed to issue supplementary award to this effect within a stipulated time.

E. The National Highway Authority of India must be directed to deposit the amount payable in terms of the supplementary award, in interest bearing fixed deposit account(s) in any nationalized bank which shall be disbursed to the petitioner.”

3. Briefly noted the facts in the writ petition are that by an award dated 31.07.2014, the petitioner’s land was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub Divisional officer, Rohet, District Pali while exercising powers under the Act of 1956. The petitioner had accepted the award and the possession of the land was handed-over to the respondents. At the time of passing of the award, Section 3-J of the National Highways Act , 1956 was in vogue and, therefore, the petitioner was not granted solatium and interest. Subsequently, Section 3-J of the Act of 1956 was declared ultra-vires by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. V/s. Tarsem Singh & Ors., reported in AIR 2019 SC 4689 . After passing of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5299/2018 (Jeta Ram V/s Union of India & Ors.) which was disposed of by this Court on 09.11.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there was no occasion for the petitioner to pray for the compensation towards solatium and interest on the date on which the award was passed as Section 3-J of the Act of 1956 was in vogue, which does not entitle the petitioner for grant of solatium and interest.

5. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra), the petitioner is now entitled to get solatium and interest as compensation for acquisition of his land acquired by the respondents.

6. Learned counsel also submits that technically, the application should have been filed before the Land Acquisition Officer itself but the writ petition was filed before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 09.11.2022 with a direction to approach the Arbitrator by way of filing an appropriate application. Since the dispute with respect to the solatium and interest was not raised by the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be given liberty to approach the concerned Land Acquisition Officer by way of filing an appropriate application for grant of solatium and interest in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) and the Land Acquisition Officer may be directed to decide the same expeditiously.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the award was passed way-back in the year 2014 and the petitioner had waived his right to challenge the same as he had accepted the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has approached this Court after a de