IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19884 of 2018 ==========================================================

SHRI SWAMINARAYAN SATSANG SEVA SAHITYA PRACHAR SAMITEE Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MS. KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS. PAYAL M TUVAR(7055) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS HETAL G. PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR MAULIK NANAVATI, ADVOCATE FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4 UNSERVED WANT OF TIM for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.

JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 12/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. Pursuant to the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by this Court in the present petition directing the competent authority to declare an additional award in light of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh and Others reported in 2019 (9) SCC 304, an affidavit dated 15.09.2025 has been filed by the Officer In-charge as Competent Authority, Special Land Acquisition Officer and Deputy Collector-1, Anand, namely respondent no.2 bringing on record the computation with regard to the Solatium and interest for the land-in-question, payable in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Tarsem Singh (Supra).

2. The respondent– National Highways Authority of India filed an affidavit dated 14.11.2025 disputing the computation brought on record with the affidavit of the Deputy Collector, making a submission that the acquisition of the land-in- question had taken place prior to the enforcement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiliation and Resettlement Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.01.2014. The computation of Solatium with respect to the land-in- question is, thus, guided by Section-23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is 30% on the market value of the land-in-question. The competent authority has committed an error in calculating the Solatium @ 100% by applying the provision of 2013’ Act.

3. Taking note of the above stand of the NHAI, we are required to note that there is no dispute about the fact that the award determining the compensation with respect to the land-in-question was declared on 03.06.2013, prior to the coming into force of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiliation and Resettlement Act, 2013 w.e.f. 01.01.2014. Moreover, the acquisition proceedings were conducted under the National Highways Act and with the decision of ‘Tarsem Singh’ rendered on 19.09.2019, the provisions of Section-3(J) of the National Highways Act excluding applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been held ultravires, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The result is that with respect to all acquisitions made under the National Highways Act after insertion of Section-3(J) by the Act’ 16 of 1997 w.e.f. 24.01.1997, where the Solatium and interest was denied to the landowners on the premise of non-applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it was held by the Apex Court that such landowners will be entitled to the aforesaid benefits. The result is that for all acquisitions made between 1997 and 2015 where the benefits of Solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been denied, the Apex Court had directed to grant such benefits to the landowners.

4. With the above, we are also required to take note of the provision of Section-24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiliation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which is a transitional provisions between the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabiliation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Section-24(1)(a)

and (b