Landowners whose acquisitions are governed by the National Highways Act, 1956, are entitled to solatium and interest in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as Section 3J of the NH Act is unconstitutional for violating Article 14.

Order

1. As all the writ petitions raise a common issue and even considering the commonality of the reliefs prayed for, they are being heard and decided together. For the sake of convenience, the facts arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20497/2025, titled as M/s Mathuradas Sukh Lal Rathi Vs. Union Of India and Ors., are being considered.

2. The prayer made in the aforesaid writ petition reads as under:-

“It is, therefore humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and the record pertaining to the case may be called for from Respondents and:-

i) By issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to compute and pay the Petitioner, 30% solatium and 12% interest and other statutory benefits in accordance with the principle of law as laid down in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh and others reported in 2019:INSC:1061, and in terms of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.1773/2021 in Civil Appeal No.7064/2019 titled as Union of India and Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors. reported in 2025:INSC:146, 2025 SCC Online 235, in a time bound manner.

ii) By issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to decide the representation filed by the Petitioner for determine and disburse 30% Solatium and 12% interest for the acquired land of the Petitioner in terms of law as laid down in Union of India vs Tarsem Singh and others reported in 2019:INSC:1061, in a time bound manner.

iii) Any other writ, order or direction which your lordships may deem fit and proper in favour of Petitioner may also be passed in the interest of justice.

iv) Cost of the petition may awarded to the Petitioner.”

3. A bare perusal of the reliefs sought makes it manifest that the petitioners have prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents to compute and pay solatium, interest, interest on solatium and other benefits to which they are entitled to in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh and Ors., (2019) 9 SCC 304 (hereinafter referred to as “Tarsem Singh-I”) and further in terms of the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.1773/2021 in Civil Appeal No.7064/2019 titled as Union of India and Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors.,reported in 2025:INSC:146 (hereinafter referred to as “Tarsem Singh-II”).

4. Reliance has also been placed on the recent order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Review Petition (Civil) No.2528/2025 in Miscellaneous Application No.1773/2021 in Civil Appeal No.7064/2019, titled as National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) Vs. Tarsem Singh and Ors. (hereinafter referred to as “Tarsem Singh-III”), vide which the review petition filed by the NHAI seeking recall of the order dated 04.02.2025 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.1773/2021 has been disposed of.

5. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved herein stands duly covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the cases of Tarsem Singh-I, Tarsem Singh-II and Tarsem Singh-III.

6. The seminal question involved in all the present matters is whether the petitioners are entitled to solatium, interest and interest on solatium for the acquisition of their land under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”) as the provisions of Section 3J of the Act of 1956 were struck down by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour