Bombay High Court
VIJAYKUMAR HARIPRASAD AGARWALversusTHE COMPETENT AUTHORITY THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the respondents must calculate and disburse the statutory solatium and interest payable under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Vijaykumar Hariprasad Agarwal, claimed that the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) failed to pay statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petition relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019) which mandates such payments, and on several Bombay High Court orders granting similar relief. The respondents argued that the court should only direct the amount to be deposited with the Competent Authority, citing a recent Supreme Court order in SLP (C) No.36306 of 2025. The High Court held that the case is squarely covered by the Supreme Court precedent and earlier High Court rulings, and that no interim stay exists to impede relief. Consequently, the court directed the respondents to calculate, deposit, and ultimately disburse the solatium and interest to the petitioner, rejecting the respondents’ limited‑deposit suggestion. The writ petition was allowed and disposed with detailed compliance directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to statutory solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the court may order direct disbursement of the amounts to the petitioner or merely direct deposit with the Competent Authority.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and subsequent High Court orders bind the present case.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 23, 28
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Solatium
- Interest
- Statutory benefits
- Section 23
- Section 28
- Supreme Court precedent
- Writ petition
- Bombay High Court
Judgment
45_WP_1185_26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1185 OF 2026
Vijaykumar Hariprasad Agarwal … Petitioner
vs.
The Competent Authority
Special Land Acquisition Office, and another … Respondents
Mr. Pramod Narayan Joshi for petitioner.
Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Rakesh L. Singh, i/b. M. V. Kini & Co. for respondent No.2-NHAI.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 02nd FEBRUARY, 2026
P.C. :
. This writ petition raises an issue regarding non-payment of
statutory benefits of solatium and interest, under Sections 23 and 28
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2-
National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), being the beneficiary of
the acquisition along with the other respondent, failed to comply
with the requirements of law, as specifically clarified by the Supreme
Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and
others [(2019) 9 SCC 304].
Digitally
signed by
PRIYA
PRIYA
KAMBLI
KAMBLI
Date:
2026.02.03
10:21:04
+0530
3. Since the respondents in the present case are the Special Land
Acquisition Officer (SLAO) and the NHAI, who are represented by
the learned AGP and the learned counsel appearing for the NHAI, the
petition is taken up for disposal. This is particularly in the backdrop
of the fact that this Court, in a number of such petitions, following
1/6
45_WP_1185_26.doc
the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others (supra), has already
granted relief as claimed in this petition.
4. In the series of orders passed by this Court, is an order dated
6th November, 2025, passed by a Division Bench of this Court
(Coram: G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ) in Writ Petition No. 13634
of 2025 (Annapurna Prakash Buva Vs. Union of India), along with
connected writ petitions. Perusal of the said order shows that the
Division Bench of this Court referred to the said judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem
Singh and others (supra) as also a number of orders passed by
coordinate Benches of this Court, such as in the case of M/s.
Manidhari Realtors Private Limited and another Vs. Union of India
and others (Writ Petition No. 7224 of 2022 dated 25.04.2025) and
other such orders, reaching the conclusion that the reliefs sought by
the petitioners were entirely covered by the said judgments and
orders. Thereupon, the Division Bench of this Court also took note of
the pendency of certain miscellaneous application before the
Supreme Court, in the context of the earlier judgment in the case of
Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others (supra) and
found that since the Supreme Court had not granted any interim
order or stay, there was no impediment in granting relief to the
petitioners therein. Accordingly, the Division Bench of this Court,
allowed the writ petitions and directed the aforementioned statutory
benefits to be calculated and deposited before the Competent
Authority, which would then disburse the amounts to the petitioners.
The learned counsel for the petitioner herein is seeking identical
relief.
2/6
45_WP_1185_26.doc
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking identical
relief.
6. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for NHAI, is unable to
dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner herein is identical and
hence, covered by the earlier orders passed by this Court, including
the said order passed on 7th October, 2025, in the case of Jagannath
Vishnu Pawar Vs. Union of India and Ors [Writ Petition (C) No.
16370 of 2023 of Bombay High Court] and connected writ petitions,
by following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others (supra).
But, he submitted that instead of directing disbursal of the amount in
favor of the petitioner, this Court may consider issuing only a
direction of depositing the amount with the Competent Authority. In
this context, reference was made to a recent order passed by the
Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.36306 of 2025,
which arose out of an order passed by this Court, directing amounts
to be disbursed to similarly situated petitioners. In the said order, the
Supreme Court had directed that the amounts be deposited with the
Competent Authority.
7. It was further submitted that although a review petition filed
in the context of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others (supra), was
dismissed in February 2025 by the Supreme Court, another
miscellaneous application was pending. But, it was conceded that
there was no interim stay or interim order passed by the Supreme
Court.
3/6
45_WP_1185_26.doc
8. We find that since the case of the petitioner herein is
admittedly covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others
(supra) and a number of orders passed by coordinate Benches of this
Court, it is not necessary to discuss the facts of this petition. It is
undisputed that the petitioner herein was also deprived of statutory
benefits of solatium and interest, as payable under Sections 23 and
28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In terms of the law laid down
by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs.
Tarsem Singh and others (supra) and relief being granted to
identically situated petitioners in a number of writ petitions, by
coordinate Benches of this Court, we are inclined to allow this writ
petition.
9. It is relevant to note that the Supreme Court, while rejecting
an application seeking clarification/review of the judgment in the
case of Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others
(supra), held that the principles established in the said judgment
regarding the beneficial nature of granting solatium and interest,
cannot be deviated from, and accordingly, the said principles were
confirmed while dismissing the applications seeking
clarifications/review.
10. It is also an admitted position that in the proceedings that may
still be pending before the Supreme Court, in the context of the said
judgment passed in the case of Union of India and another Vs.
Tarsem Singh and others (supra), there is no interim stay or interim
relief granted by the Supreme Court and hence, there is no
impediment in allowing this petition on the very same lines, as the
earlier writ petitions were allowed by the Coordinate Benches of this
Court.
4/6
45_WP_1185_26.doc
11. We find that merely directing respondent No.2-NHAI to
calculate and deposit the amount payable towards such statutory
benefits, before the Competent Authority would mean that although
we accept the contention of the petitioner by applying the law laid
down by the Supreme Court, yet he would stand deprived of
enjoying the fruits of such relief.
12. We are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2-NHAI that the direction regarding
disbursal of amount to the petitioner may not be granted, while the
said respondent would be depositing the amount before the
Competent Authority.
13. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are
directed to calculate the amounts towards statutory benefits of
solatium and interest payable to the petitioner under Sections 23 and
28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alongwith further
consequential directions.
14. The petition is disposed of as follows:
(i) The petitioner shall furnish copy of award to the Competent
Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer within a period of
two weeks from the date of uploading of this order, for the
purpose of computing of the amount of solatium and interest, as
may be payable to the petitioner, in terms what has been held
by the Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem
Singh and others (supra);
(ii) The Competent Authority shall, on receipt of copy of award,
make appropriate computation of the amount payable to the
5/6
45_WP_1185_26.doc
petitioner and intimate the same to the Project Director, NHAI,
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
award;
(iii) The Project Director, NHAI, shall accept such computation and
deposit with the Competent Authority the amount which
become payable to the petitioner towards solatium and interest.
Such amount be deposited within a period of six weeks from the
date of receipt of computation from the Competent Authority.
(iv) The Competent Authority thereafter shall proceed to disburse
the amount to the petitioner as would be received from the
Project Director, NHAI/acquiring body;
(v) All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open with
regard to the calculation of the quantum of amount payable
towards solatium and interest under Sections 23 and 28 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
15. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya Kambli
6/6
Checking your session…