JUDGMENT

Mr. M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

In this batch of LPAs and Writ Petitions, common questions of law arise and so they are being disposed off by this common order.

A brief overview of the facts

2. The respondents in the LPAs (except LPA-558-2019), the appellants in LPA-558-2019 and the petitioners in the Writ Petitions are land owners whose lands had been acquired under the National Highway Act, 1956 by the National Highway Authority of India (for short 'the NHAI') for the purpose of widening/four-laning of certain National Highways.

3. Thereafter, matters were referred to the concerned District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer (the Revenue Authority of the State) (hereinafter referred to as the 'competent authority') and he passed awards and awarded compensation, but while doing so, he did not grant benefits akin to those under Section 23 , Section 28 and Section 34 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894.

4. Writ Petitions were filed in this Court challenging the award of the competent authority by landowners without approaching the arbitrator under section 3G (5) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956.

5. They were partly allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court which judgments are challenged by the NHAI in the Letters Patent Appeals being LPAs-4965-2018, 428-2019, 475-2019, 224-2019, 4968-2018, 280-2019, 52-2019.

6. In LPA-324-2019, the landowners did approach the Arbitrator and he passed an award under section 3G(5), but the said award was not challenged by them under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Instead the land owners filed Writ Petition in this Court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The said order is challenged by the NHAI in the said LPA.

7. In LPA-558-2019, the landowners had filed a writ petition challenging the arbitral award passed on 04.05.2016 by the arbitrator confirming the order dt.30.04.2012 passed by the competent authority, but the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that they have a remedy to challenge the same under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This judgment is challenged by them in the said LPA.

8. In CWP-18775-2019, CWP-25229-2019, CWP-14487-2019 and CWP-18799-2019, the landowners had not approached the statutory Arbitrator for enhancement of compensation granted by the competent authority under the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT ,1956 and had straight away approached this Court seeking the benefits akin to those granted under section 23 and 28 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894.

Contentions of the land owners

9. The landowners place reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forgings v. Union of India and Ors., 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 375 (DB) dt.28.03.2008

10. In M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forgings (1 supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that in acquisitions of land under the National Highway Act, 1956, solatium and interest in terms of Section 23 (2) and Section 28 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 should be granted to landowners and Section 3-J and Section 3-G of the said Act, which did not provide for payment of solatium and interest and other statutory benefits similar to the provisions contained in Section 23 (1-A), Section 23 (2) and Section 28 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894, were struck down.

11. This judgment was approved by the Supreme Court in Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh and others, 2019(9) SCC 304.

12. The Supreme Court