JUDGMENT

[WP(C).16797/2020, WP(C).16822/2020, WP(C).16944/2020, WP(C).16954/2020, WP(C).17044/2020, WP(C).17134/2020, WP(C).17291/2020, WP(C).17298/2020, WP(C).17346/2020, WP(C).17404/2020]

The properties owned by the petitioners herein were acquired for the purpose of widening the National Highway invoking the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 . Aggrieved by the amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioners challenged the same before the Arbitrator. Though the amount of compensation was enhanced no sum was granted towards solatium and interest on solatium.

2. The petitioners contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Another v. Tarsem Singh and Others [ (2019) 9 SCC 304 ] had declared that Section 3J of the National Highways Act insofar as it deprives the landowner of solatium and interest in Section 23 (1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of the proviso to Section 28 is unconstitutional and that those benevolent provisions would apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act as well.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that since the entitlement of the landowners for solatium and interest having been