AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing.
Writ Petition No.6152 of 2026 is not on the Board. However, since all other connected matters are on the Board today, the said petition is ordered to be taken on the Board and is accordingly heard and decided along with the other connected matters.
The controversy in all these petitions is identical in nature. In all these cases, the lands of the respondent-landowners came to be acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) under the National Highways Act, 1956, awarded compensation to each of the landowners by determining the market value of the acquired lands. In addition to this, an amount equivalent to 10% of the market value was paid to each of the landowners under Section 3G(2) of the National Highways Act towards loss of easementary rights. However, CALA did not award solatium as contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
In all these cases, the awards passed by the CALA were subjected to challenge by the landowners by filing proceedings under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act. The Arbitral Tribunal granted certain enhancement in compensation to the respective landowners. The Arbitral Tribunal has also awarded an amount equivalent to 10% of the market value to the landowners under Section 3G(2) of the National Highways Act.
The arbitral award has not been challenged by either of the parties and has, therefore, attained finality between the parties. The landowners thereafter filed execution petitions for execution of the arbitral award. In the said execution proceedings, a prayer was also made for payment of solatium with interest in addition to the amount of compensation determined by the Arbitral Tribunal.
The learned Executing Court has determined the amount payable to land owners by separate orders in all these execution proceedings, which are the subject matter of challenge in the present group of petitions. While computing the amount,t he learned Executing Court has granted solatium and interest thereon, as well.
The entitlement of the landowners to receive solatium in cases of acquisition of land under the National Highways Act, 1956, came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Tarsem Singh and Ors., reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, in cases of acquisition of land under the National Highways Act, 1956, the landowners are entitled to receive solatium over and above the market value of the acquired land. While dealing with the issue of solatium, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, held that in such cases the landowner may not be entitled to receive compensation towards loss of easement under Section 3G(2) of the National Highways Act. Relevant observations in Tarsem Singh (Supra) in this regard are reproduced herein below :
“Section 3G(2) makes it clear that rights of user and rights in the nature of easement being valuable property rights, compensation must be payable therefor. It is obvious that there is no double payment to the owner on this score as the owner and/or any other person has to prove that a right in the nature of an easement has also been taken away. Obviously, the right of user being subsumed in acquisition of ownership, the owner cannot get a double benefit on this score. The right of user is, therefore, referable only to persons other than the owner, who may have tenancy rights, and other rights of license on land which is acquired under the National Highways Act.”
The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that, in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh (Supra), the landowners cannot claim double benefit towards compensation for loss of easementary rights and solatium. The learned Advocate submits that, in the present case, the landowners have already received compensation under Section 3G(2) of the National Highways Act towards loss of easementary rights and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to claim solatium over and above the amount already received under the said provision.
Apart from this, the learned Advocate places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Review Petition (Civil) No.2528 of 2025, National Highways Authority of India v. Tarsem Singh and Others, to contend that, where the claim for compensation has already attained finality prior to 28/03/2008, solatium and interest thereon would be payable only in cases where a specific claim in that regard was made before the Arbitrator. The learned Advocate, therefore, contends that interest ought to have been awarded by the learned Executing Court only from the date on which the claim for solatium and interest was made by each of the landowners and not from the date of the original award passed by the CALA.
Per contra, the learned Advocate appearing for the landowners submits that the entire land belonging to the landowners was not acquired. It is contended that only a portion of the land was acquired and, as a consequence, the easementary rights over the remaining portion of the land were adversely affected. The learned Advocate also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of NHAI PIU, Aurangabad v. Kerman Sam Amroliwala and Anr., ( Arbitration Appeal No.14 of 2016, decided at the Aurangabad Bench on 16/03/2026), wherein, after considering the judgment in Tarsem Singh (Supra), this Court held that, in cases where only a portion of the landowner's land is acquired, additional compensation under the head of loss of easementary rights can be awarded under Section 3G(2) of the National Highways Act. The relevant observations in paragraph 9 of the judgment are reproduced below:
“9.Thus in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra), it is held that easementary right is subsumed in ownership right and that once ownership is taken over by acquisition, there cannot be separate compensation for easementary right. However, in the instant case, this court finds that frontal part of the land of the claimant is acquired and remaining part of the claimant’s land is affected as he runs the business of petrol pump. Thus, the claimant being also the adjacent land holder where he runs his petrol pump has suffered the loss of easementary right. Thus, granting 10% of loss of easementary right does not travel beyond the law as laid in the case of Tarsem Singh supra.”
The learned Advocate draws the attention of the Court to the award passed by the CALA to contend that compensation under Section 3G(2) of the National Highways Act was also awarded by the CALA and, since the said award was not challenged, the Arbitral Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation under the said provision on the enhanced market value as determined by the Arbitral Tribunal.
With respect to the contention that interest should be paid only from the date of filing of the execution petition, the learned Advocate draws attention to operative Clause 6 of the order of the learned Tribunal and contends that, in view of the aforesaid clause, the landowners would be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount of compensation as well as on the amount of solatium from the date of the award passed by the CALA. It is contended that claim for solatium was made all throughout. Cluase 6 of operative portion of Arbitral Award reads as under :
“6] In respect of claim of statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLA (Civil) 15104/2014 will be binding on both parties.”
As regards the first contention with respect to the payment of 10% component towards loss of easementary rights, I am unable to accept the contention of learned Advocate for petitioner, since the CALA had awarded compensation under the said head and the same was not challenged by the NHAI. Since CALA had awarded compensation under Section 3G(2) of the National Highways Act, it is obvious that the Arbitral Tribunal would also grant compensation under the said head in the absence of any challenge to the same by the NHAI. Apart from this, the entire land of the landowners was not acquired. In this situation, it would become a mixed question of law and fact as to whether the easementary rights were affected or not. It was therefore necessary for the NHAI to challenge the award of compensation under Section 3G(2).
As regards the contention that interest should be payable only from the date of filing of the execution petition, the learned Advocate for petitioner has placed reliance on paragraph 14(ii) of the judgment in review in Tarsem Singh. Paragraph 14 (ii) reads as under :
“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.”
The Arbitral Tribunal has specifically stated in operative Clause 6 of the award that statutory claims will follow in accordance with the adjudication in Tarsem Singh. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh has undoubtedly held that the landowners are entitled to compensation under the head of solatium. In that view of the matter, it is difficult to accept the contention that the claim of the landowners with respect to solatium was not alive and was raised for the first time in the execution petition.
For the reasons recorded above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the learned Executing Court granting 30% amount of solatium over and above the 10% amount awarded towards loss of easementary rights and also not restricting the entitlement of the landowners to interest on solatium from the date of filing of the execution petition, as contended by the petitioners.
However, perusal of the impugned orders would demonstrate that the learned Executing Court has computed the amount of solatium on the compensation awarded towards market value, loss of easementary rights and loss caused due to severance of land. The learned Executing Court has erred in this regard. Perusal of Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act would indicate that solatium is to be computed at 30% of the market value of the land as determined. The learned Executing Court has obviously erred in adding the component of loss of easementary rights and compensation towards loss caused due to severance of land to the market value while arriving at the figure of solatium.
In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed in the following terms :
ORDER
The learned Executing Court is directed to recalculate the amount of solatium at 30% of the market value of the acquired land, by excluding the component towards loss of easementary rights and compensation towards loss caused due to severance of land.
The other directions contained in the impugned orders, including the entitlement to interest, shall remain undisturbed.
The learned Executing Court shall undertake the aforesaid exercise and determine the balance amount payable to the landowners.
The balance amount, if any, shall be deposited by the petitioner-NHAI with the learned Executing Court on or before 30/09/2026.
Writ Petition is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.