KEDARNATH GANGADHAR BADHANversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THR THE DEPUTY SECRETARY AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:42636-DB


                                             {1}                   39-wp-12015-2026

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             39 WRIT PETITION NO. 12015 OF 2026

                               Kedarnath Gangadhar Badhan & Others
                                              VERSUS
                                   The Union Of India And Others
                                                 ...
              Mr. Dipesh Pande, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mrs. Saie Joshi, AGP for the State
              Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 and 3

                             69 WRIT PETITION NO. 12103 OF 2026

                              Mangesh Sudhakar Tambe And Others
                                           VERSUS
                                 The Union Of India And Others

              Mr. Dipesh Pande, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Ms. Neha Kamble, AGP for the State
              Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 and 3
                                               .......

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


                                      DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER, 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.   Indisputably, the issue raised in these petitions 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
                                    {2}                        39-wp-12015-2026

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 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 :
                                 {3}                    39-wp-12015-2026

                                ORDER

 (a) The writ petitions are 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 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.


 (c) In the light of the observations made herein above, it is
      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
                                {4}                  39-wp-12015-2026

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.)




Bhagyawant Punde