Section 3-J of the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1956 was declared unconstitutional, entitling landowners to solatium and interest for acquired land.

ORDER :

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 27.05.2024 passed by the District Collector(Arbitrator), Pali under Section 3(G)(v) National Highways Authority of India Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’), whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

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. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court on 09.11.2022, the petitioner preferred an application before the Arbitrator who was District Collector, Pali for grant of solatium and interest for his land which was acquired by the respondents.

4. Learned District Collector (Arbitrator), Pali vide order dated 27.05.2024, rejected the application preferred by the petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner had accepted the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Rohet, District Pali and had handed-over the possession of the acquired land without raising any dispute, thus, no arbitrable dispute exists between the parties. As such, the application for arbitration in the matter for grant of solatium and interest is not maintainable and the same has been therefore rejected. Being aggrieved of the order dated 27.05.2024, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 chall