Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court upholds relief for landowners in NHAI cases, dismissing pleas seeking clarification on the grant of solatium and interest payable.
- The judgment ensures that solatium and interest provisions under the Land Acquisition Act apply to acquisitions by NHAI between 1997 and 2015.
- The competent authority will compute the solatium and interest payable to landowners under the Tarsem Singh case.
New Delhi: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed pleas filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) seeking clarification that the Court’s 2019 ruling in Union of India v Tarsem Singh on grant of solatium and interest to aggrieved landowners should apply prospectively.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that granting such clarification would defeat the very relief intended by Tarsem Singh. The bench emphasized that modifying the ruling would undermine the doctrine of finality in judicial decisions and delay justice for landowners.
“The ultimate outcome of Tarsem Singh relates to granting solatium and interest to aggrieved landowners whose lands were acquired between 1997 and 2015. Modifying or clarifying it would amount to evading responsibility and delaying a settled issue,” the bench observed.
In the landmark 2019 Tarsem Singh case, the Supreme Court declared Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, unconstitutional to the extent it excluded solatium and interest payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for land acquisitions by NHAI.
The judgment ensured that solatium and interest provisions under Sections 23(1A), 23(2), and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act applied to acquisitions under the NH Act.
NHAI later sought clarification on whether this ruling would apply prospectively to avoid reopening cases where compensation determinations had attained finality.
Rejecting NHAI’s plea, the Court underscored the need to eliminate discrimination between landowners whose properties were acquired by NHAI between 1997 and 2015 and those whose lands were acquired post-2015.
“When a provision is declared unconstitutional, disparity affecting a select group must be rectified, particularly when it strikes at the core of Article 14,” the bench noted.
The Court also dismissed concerns about the financial burden of Rs. 100 crores raised by NHAI, stating that the cost would ultimately be borne by commuters and not project proponents under the public-private partnership model.
The Court finally directed the competent authority to compute the solatium and interest payable to landowners under the Tarsem Singh case.
