SATYAJEET UDAY SHISODEversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:44545-DB


                                               1                   3-WP-3392-26.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 3392 OF 2026

                                   SATYAJEET UDAY SHISODE
                                            VERSUS
               THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH DEPUTY SECRETARY AND OTHERS
                                               ...
              Mr. Sakshi Kale, Advocate a/w Mr. S. B. Bhalerao, Advocate h/f Mr.
              Shivam Sunil Agrawal, Advocate For The Petitioner
              Mr. V. M. Kagne, Agp For Respondents/State
              Mr. U. B. Bondar, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 And 3
              Mr. Deepak S. Manorkar, Advocate a/w Mr. Deshbhushan Madkar,
              Advocate For Respondent No.4
                                               ...

                                     CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                             ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                      DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.    Indisputably, the issue raised in this petition 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 Others Vs. Tarsem Singh and Others

              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




              SVH
                                      2                      3-WP-3392-26.odt


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 :

                                  ORDER

  a) The writ 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.


SVH
                                        3                  3-WP-3392-26.odt


      (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 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

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.)




SVH