ATMARAM VEDU PATILversusTHE GOVT OF INDIA THR THE DEPUTY SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:41511-DB


                                                 1                   62-WP-11693-26.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 11693 OF 2026

                                    MR. ATMARAM VEDU PATIL
                                              VERSUS
                  THE GOVT OF INDIA THROUGH THE DEPUTY SECRETARY AND
                                              OTHERS
                                                 ...
              Mr. S. A. Kulkarni And R. L. Jakhade, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. S. R. Wakle, AGP for Respondents/State
              Mr. Rahul Bagul, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 3
                                                 ...

                                       CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                               ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                        DATE : 08th SEPTEMBER, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.    The Apex Court has decided the Review Petition bearing

              Review Petition (Civil) No. 2528 of 2025 and has given following

              directions:

                          “14.    Considering the facts and circumstances
                          explained in the instant proceedings along with the
                          various submissions placed on record and 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


              SVH
                                   2                   62-WP-11693-26.odt


          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’.”

2.    In view of the above directions, the writ petition is allowed in

terms of prayer clause ‘D’, which reads thus:

          “D.     Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions
          thereby the award passed by the Competent
          Authority Of India & also the award dated
          15.06.2017 bearing No.LAQ/REF/NHAI/Dhule/261
          /2016 be kindly be modified and the petitioners be
          awarded in addition to the market value of the land,
          amount of 30% of the solatium, 12% of component
          and requisite amount of interest, as provided under
          Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and/or Right To Fair
          Compensation      and     Transparency     in    Land
          Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
          2013.”

3.    It is made clear that if there is any error in calculations of the

solatium and interest, the parties are at liberty to avail remedy as

provided under Section 3(G)(5).



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




SVH