JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent relating to the impugned order No.16612/2012/Arbitration, dated 25.02.2015 passed by the first respondent and modify the same regarding the solatium and consequently directing the second and third respondents to pay the solatium and interest on solatium for the compensation under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.)

1. This Writ Petition has been filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent relating to the impugned order No.16612/2012/Arbitration, dated 25.02.2015 passed by the first respondent and modify the same regarding the solatium and consequently direct the second and third respondents to pay the solatium and interest on solatium for the compensation under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the owners of the property comprised in Survey No. 1425/1(Part), 1425/2 (Part) and 1426 ad-measuring 4.78 cents together with common right of passage to an extent of 2587 sq.meters situated at No. 30, Madhavaram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District. The said property was acquired for the expansion of the National Highways under the scheme of National Highways Act, 1956. The second respondent conducted enquiry as contemplated under the said Act. The petitioners were attended the enquiry and made claims of compensation in respect of their respective land and also made claim of compensation jointly for the common passage. The second respondent after determining the compensation for the land of the petitioners and disbursed the same to the individuals in respect of their respective portions. However, the compensation for the common passage for one of the purchaser was rejected and the claim of the original owner was also rejected and referred the matter before the Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, by depositing the compensation amount into the Court by an order dated 26.04.2007. The said dispute was referred to the Principal Sub Court, Ponneri in L.A.O.P.No. 156 of 2011. However, the Principal Sub Judge, Ponneri, by an order dated 19.02.2013 stated that the petitioners are entitled, only for compensation and gave right to file the reference before the third respondent. Therefore, the petitioners preferred a reference before the third respondent for enhancement of compensation and solatium.

3. The third respondent partly allowed the reference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.700/- to Rs.1,300/- per sq.ft and rejected the claim of the solatium, since there is a specific bar under Section 3J of National Highways Act, 1956. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent preferred an appeal in ARB.O.P.No. 218 of 2015 before the District Court, Thiruvallur. Pending appeal, the petitioners were constrained to yield for compromise entered with the first respondent with regard to enhancement and based on the compromise, the appeal was disposed of by an order dated 23.08.2016, thereby the petitioners had forgo only 50% of the interest on the enhanced compensation and also they agreed not to claim the interest amount at any forum as per the terms of compromise. However, with regard to solatium, the bar under Section 3J of National Highways Act, 1957 was struck down by the various High Courts and the same was uphold by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos. 129 to 159 of 2014. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the solatium on the enhanced compensation and interest on solatium.

4. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that there is no compromise with regard to solatium and as such, the petitioners are entitled for solat