Bombay High Court

MANGESH SUDHAKAR TAMBE AND OTHERSversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THR THE DEPUTY SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petitioners are entitled to solatium and interest on their compensation as per the Supreme Court’s directions.

Summary

The petitioners, landowners whose property was acquired under the National Highways Act, filed a writ petition seeking solatium and interest on their compensation. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s directions in National Highways Authority of India v. Tarsem Singh (Review Petition No. 2528 of 2025) which set out eligibility criteria based on the date of claim and the status of the claim as of 28 March 2008. Applying those principles, the Court held that the petitioners, being alive on or after that date and with pending claims, are entitled to the additional amounts. The Court ordered the competent authority to compute and pay the solatium and interest within six months, subject to challenges under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the remedial provisions of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are entitled to solatium and interest on compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act.
Whether the Supreme Court’s directions in NHAI v. Tarsem Singh regarding eligibility dates and claim status apply to the petitioners.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 34, 37
National Highways Act, 1956 — s. 3G(5)

Subjects

land acquisition
solatium
interest
compensation
National Highways Act
Arbitration
Supreme Court directions
writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40652-DB
1 69.WP.11205.26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 11205 OF 2026

MANGESH SUDHAKAR TAMBE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY AND OTHERS

...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Dipesh D. Pande
AGP for Respondent/State : Ms. S.S. Joshi
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 3/UOI : Mr. Krushna S. Solanke
…

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : 03.09.2026

PER COURT:
1. Undisputedly, the issue raised in this petition and the prayers
made are squarely covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Writ Petition No. 13783 of 2025 in the case of Prakash
Dayaram Patil Devre vs. The Competent Authority Land Acquisition
and Another and connected matters therein and in view of the
principles enunciated in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs.
Tarsem Singh and Ors. reported in 2019 (9) SCC 304.

2. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the Review Petition filed in the
matter of National Highways Authority of India vs. Tarsem Singh and
others in Review Petition (Civil) No. 2528 of 2025 has issued following
directions :
“ 14.Considering the facts and circumstances explained in the instant
proceedings along with the various submissions placed on record and
2 69.WP.11205.26.odt

with a view to balancing the equities regarding delay and the
entitlements of the landowners, we issue the following directions:

(i) All landowners whose claims re: the quantum and/or components
of compensation for their lands acquired under the NH Act were alive
on or after 28.03.2008, i.e., they were pending before one of the
prescribed fora, shall be entitled to seek addition of 'interest',
'solatium', and 'interest on the solatium' to their compensation claim;

(ii)In the cases where compensation claims are alive on the aforesaid
date, but the landowner has claimed "interest'". 'solatium', and
'interest on solatium' after 28.03.2008, no interest on both
components shall be payable for the period of delay. Such landowner
shall be entitled to 'Interest' and 'Interest on solatium' only from the
date on which such claims were raised; and

(iii) If the claims of the landowners stood concluded prior to
28.03.2008, with no further appeal, Writ Petition, Special Leave
Petition, etc., then such landowners are not entitled to seek
reopening, review, or modification of the said decision for the
purpose of claiming 'solatium' or 'interest'.”

3. Hence, we pass the following order :
ORDER
a) The petition is allowed by directing the competent

authorities to compute and pay to the petitioners solatium

and interest in accordance with the principles enunciated in

the case of Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and

others (Supra) within a period of six (6) months from today.

(b) It is made clear that the petitioners shall assist the

competent authorities by producing all relevant documents

and upon verification of the same, the competent authorities

shall proceed further. It is also clarified that payments made

pursuant to the directions given herein above, shall be

subject to the challenges, if any, raised under Sections 34 and
3 69.WP.11205.26.odt

37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

further made clear that if any of the parties are aggrieved by

the quantum and computation carried out by the competent

authority while carrying out the directions given herein

above, the remedy of Section 3G (5) of the National

Highways Act, 1956 would be available to such aggrieved

party in accordance with law. It is further made clear that the

competent Authority while implementing the directions given

herein above shall give reasonable hearing to all stake

holders.

4. As observed by this Court in clause ‘C’(supra), if any party has

any objection in respect of the calculation of the compensation

amount, they are at liberty to approach Arbitrator under Section 3G

(5) of the National Highways Act.

(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)

habeeb/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…