The court affirms the entitlement to solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquired land consistent with prior judgments.

For Petitioner : Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Palani Muthu For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan Deputy Solicitor General of India for R1 Mr.Su.Srinivasan for R2 to R4 Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader for R5 & R6 ORDER This writ petition has been filed to issue a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to pay solatium at 30% as per Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and additional amount at 12% per annum as per Section 23(1-A) from the date of notification to the date of arbitral award and thereafter, at 15% per annum till the date of actual payment as per Section 28 of the Act with respect to the subject property.

2. Heard Mrs.A.L.Ganthimathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.L.Palani Muthu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent 1, Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and Mr.P.Sathish, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 5 to 6.

3. The issue that is involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the earlier orders passed by this Court by relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors., reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304 . This issue has once again gone before the Apex Court and by order dated 04.02.2025, made in Union of India & Anr. vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors., the Apex Court has clarified the position and for proper appreciation, the relevant portion in the order is extracted hereunder:

“25. In view of the foregoing analysis, we find no merit in the contentions raised by the Applicant, NHAI. We reaffirm the principles established in Tarsem Singh (supra) regarding the beneficial nature of granting ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ while emphasising the need to avoid creating unjust classifications lacking intelligible differentia. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the present Miscellaneous Application.

26. Leave is granted in the other connected matters, and all the appeals are disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to calculate the amount of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ in accordance with the directions issued in Tarsem Singh (supra). In this context, the appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 52538/2023 is dismissed, as the challenge therein pertains to the High Court’s refusal to award Additional Market Value as another component of the compensation, while ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ have already been granted.”

4. In light of the above developments, the law as declared by the Apex Court in Tarsem Singh case will apply to the present case and in view of the same, the relief as sought by the petitioner has to be granted by this Court.

5. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the sixth respondent to deal with the representation made by the petitioner dated 25.01.2023 in line with the judgment of the Apex Court in Tarsem Singh case (referred supra) and the entire amount shall be settled in favour of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.