Bombay High Court

DEEPAK RADHAKISAN AGRAWAL AND OTHERSversusTHE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THR ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petitioners are entitled to solatium and interest on their compensation as per the Supreme Court's directions in NHAI v. Tarsem Singh.

Summary

The petitioners, landowners whose lands were acquired under the National Highways Act, filed a writ petition seeking solatium and interest on their compensation, invoking paragraph 14 of the Supreme Court's decision in National Highways Authority of India v. Tarsem Singh (Review Petition No. 2528 of 2025). The High Court examined whether the Supreme Court directions applied to the petitioners, who were alive on or after 28‑03‑2008 and whose claims were pending before a prescribed forum. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court's directions and ordered the competent authorities to compute and pay the solatium and interest within six months, subject to verification of documents and possible challenges under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It also clarified that aggrieved parties could approach the arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and that a reasonable hearing must be afforded to all stakeholders. The petition was allowed and the matter disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners are entitled to solatium and interest on compensation under paragraph 14 of the Supreme Court judgment in NHAI v. Tarsem Singh.
Whether the Supreme Court directions are applicable to landowners whose claims were pending on or after 28‑03‑2008.
What procedural remedies are available for aggrieved parties concerning the quantum of compensation.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

solatium
interest
land acquisition
compensation
National Highways Act
Arbitration and Conciliation Act
Supreme Court judgment
writ petition
NHAI

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37152-DB

32 WP NO. 13677 OF 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 13677 OF 2021

Deepak Radhakisan Agrawal And Others
VERSUS
The National Highway Authority Of India Thr Its Project Director And
Another
…
• Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner.
• Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for Respondent - State
• Mr. Rajendra D. Sanap, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
…

CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 17th AUGUST, 2026
PER COURT :

1. Heard. By consent, taken up for final hearing and disposal.

2. Learned Advocate for the petitioners, at the outset, submits

that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Highways Authority of India

vs. Tarsem Singh and Others in Review Petition (Civil) No. 2528 of

2025. The review petition was disposed of by issuing the following

directions. Paragraph 14 of the said judgment is quoted below:-

“ 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:

Jhs/ 1/4
32 WP NO. 13677 OF 2021

(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. Learned Advocate for the petitioners, therefore, submits

that the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of paragraph 14 of

the aforesaid judgment. There is no dispute that the case of the

petitioners is covered by the above-mentioned judgment. It is only

submitted that, in case there is any dispute regarding the calculation

of the compensation amount, it would be open for the parties to

approach the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National

Jhs/ 2/4
32 WP NO. 13677 OF 2021

Highways Act, 1956. Considering the above, the following order is

passed:-

ORDER

A) The petition is allowed by directing the competent

authorities to compute and pay to the petitioner 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 petitioner 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

Jhs/ 3/4
32 WP NO. 13677 OF 2021

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

stakeholders.

4. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

Jhs/ 4/4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…