Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(903) WRIT PETITION NO.9608 OF 2023
Kisanlal Bairudas Jain … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and ors. … Respondents
AND
(904) WRIT PETITION NO.11052 OF 2024
Ratanlal Ramchandra Jain … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7627 OF 2024
Ramnath Rajaram Niphade … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15636 OF 2024
Ramrao Dattatray More … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15115 OF 2024
Chitra Ramesh Khode … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15834 OF 2024
Dattatraya Karbhari Niphade … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7626 OF 2024
Sudhakar Baburao Kandekar … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11876 OF 2024
Shivram Vithoba Pawar … Petitioner
Versus
The Competent Authority National Highway Authority of India and Anr. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15649 OF 2024
Khanderao Waman Vatpade … Petitioner
Versus
Competent Authority Land Acquisition No.2 and Anr. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11573 OF 2024
Dineshbhai Dayabhai Bhalodia … Petitioner
Versus
Competent Authority National Highway Authority of India and Anr. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.10696 OF 2024
Ramdas Pundalik Vidhate … Petitioner
Versus
Competent Authority National Highway Authority of India and Anr. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15653 OF 2024
Navnath Murlidhar Vatpade … Petitioner
Versus
Competent Authority Land Acquisition No.2, Nashik and Anr. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.7982 OF 2024
Raman Damu Jore … Petitioner
Versus
Government of India and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15116 OF 2024
Bajirao Raghunath Gaikwad … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11051 OF 2024
Ashok Mahadu Pawar and Ors. … Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9585 OF 2024
Genu Mahadu Jadhav … Petitioner
Versus
Government of India and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6876 OF 2024
Mayur Bhausaheb Pawar … Petitioner
Versus
The Competent Authority and Special Land Acquisition Office No.2, Nashik and Anr. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9542 OF 2024
Minakshi Prakash Deshmukh … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6971 OF 2024
Sunil Babulal Burad … Petitioner
Versus
The Government of India and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5842 OF 2024
Minakshi Prakash Deshmukh … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15967 OF 2024
Rajaram Nathu Bonde … Petitioner
Versus
Government of India and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6036 OF 2024
Grafite India Ltd. … Petitioner
Versus
Government of India and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15704 OF 2024
Ramdas Keru Malunjkar … Petitioner
Versus
Government of India and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11772 OF 2024
Ananda Revji Sanap … Petitioner
Versus
Competent Authority and Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11888 OF 2024
Ramdas Budha Gohire … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 16482 OF 2023
Jagannath Vishnu Pagar … Petitioner
Versus
Government of India and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.33968 OF 2023
Ramdas Murlidhar Gunjal … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. … Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.33972 OF 2023
Sitabai Nivrutti Satbhai … Petitioner
Versus
Government of India and Ors. … Respondents
Mr. P. N. Joshi a/w Mr. Nikhil M. Pujari, Mr. Pratik Rahade for the Petitioner in all petitions.
Mr. Sambahji Kharatmol i/b. Mr. Suhas P. Urgunde, for Respondent No.5 in WP/9608/2023.
Mr. Rakesh L. Singh a/w Ms. Heena Shaikh i/b. M. V. Kini & Co., for Respondent No.5-NHAI in WP/11052/24 & all connected WPs.
Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent-State in WP/9608/23 and WP Nos.11052, 7627, 15636, 15115, 15834 of 2024.
Ms. S. R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent-State in WP Nos.7626, 11876, 15649, 11573, 10696 of 2024.
Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for Respondent-State in WP Nos.15653, 7982, 15116, 11051, 9585 of 2024.
Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for Respondent-State in WP Nos.6876, 9542, 6971, 5842, 15967 of 2024 and WPST/33972/2023.
Ms. V. R. Raje, AGP for Respondent-State in WP Nos.6036, 15704, 11772, 11888 of 2024 and 16482/2023 and WPST/33968/2023.
CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED : 9 May 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT:- (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. We issue Rule in each of these petitions. The Rule is made returnable forthwith, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Yesterday, we made it clear that these matters would be taken up for final disposal today because there was never any dispute that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Tarsem Singh and Ors., ((2019) 9 SCC 304) was applicable in these matters, entitling all the Petitioners to the statutory benefits of interest and solatium on par with the provisions of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
4. Mr. Sambhaji Kharatmol, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National Highway Authority of India in some of these matters, has tendered an affidavit-in-reply. He has contended that these Petitions should not be entertained because all the Petitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). Further, the affidavit states that if the Petitioners are affected by non payment of solatium and interest in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (Supra), 'petitioner should promptly file claims with the Competent Authority, including all necessary documentation and prove that,
he is entitled for solatium and interest, but the Petitioner without availing the remedy directly approached this Hon'ble Court by way of writ petition, which is against the settled position of law, hence, the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner deserves to be dismissed holding that the same is not maintainable.’
5. In all these matters, the Petitioners were aggrieved with the compensation amount determined and, therefore, applied for the matter to be resolved through Arbitration as provided under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The Arbitrator so appointed made an award, enhancing the compensation. However, the benefit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) was not granted.
6. Therefore, the Petitioners preferred petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. A common judgment and order dated 4 May 2023 disposed of these. In this judgment and order, the Principal District Judge, Nashik, [PDJ], in fact agreed with the Petitioner's contention that they were entitled to solatium and interest in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh (supra). This judgment and order records that even the National Highway Authority expressed willingness to pay the solatium component from the decision date in Tarsem Singh (supra). However, the PDJ, being bound by the decision of the Co ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rishabhkumar Vs Secretary to Government of India, (2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4561), felt disabled to modify the Arbitrator's award and grant the Petitioners relief in terms of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra).
7. The above is evident from paragraphs 25 to 26 of the PDJ’s order disposing of the Petitioner's Petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are transcribed below for the convenience of reference: -
“25. I do agree with the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. S.N.Baste appearing for the applicants that applicants are entitled for solatium and interest on solatium. So also National Highways Authority expressed willingness to pay the solatium components from the date of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in case of Tarsem Singh.
26. However, in the light of legal principle laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Rishabhkumar s/o. Babulal Jejani (Supra), grant of statutory amount and components are not permissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.”
8. Incidentally, Rishabhkumar (supra) takes the view that whatever the Pri
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
