RAJESH CHANDRAMAL GALANI THROUGH GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAJENDRA WALCHAND SHINDEversusTHE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:30104-DB
                                           1                            1041(viii).WP1762-2023.doc



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 1762 OF 2023

    RAJESH CHANDRAMAL GALANI THROUGH GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
                  HOLDER RAJENDRA WALCHAND SHINDE
                                VS.
     THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH ITS PROJECT
                       DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER
                                             ...
                   Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Patil Vijay Bhalerao
    Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mr. Manorkar Deepak S. a/w. Mr. D.P. Madkar
                     Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Bondar U.B.
                                            …
                                               CORAM     : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                                           ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                                DATE     : 02.07.2026

              PER COURT :
             .     A copy of the decision of 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 been placed on record. A perusal of the said order, reveals that the
             Review Petition is disposed of by issuing 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
                              2                             1041(viii).WP1762-2023.doc



     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'.”


2.    Undisputedly, the issue raised in this petition and the prayers
made therein 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. Hence, we
pass the following order :
                                     ORDER

     a) In the light of above, 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
                           3                        1041(viii).WP1762-2023.doc



     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.

3.      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. )



vsj..