Naveen Mittal vs National Highway Authority Of India & Ors.

Considering the similitude of the controversy involved in all the aforesaid appeals, they are being heard analogously and decided by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of A.A.No.52/2024 shall be taken into consideration.

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the 24th District Judge, Jabalpur, whereby an application submitted under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1996" for the sake brevity) has been dismissed.

The only point which has been raised in the appeal before this Court during the course of arguments is that the appellant has not been awarded solatium on the compensation awarded by the Arbitrator under Section 3G.(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1956" for the sake of brevity).

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had submitted an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, wherein it has been submitted that the quantum of compensation has not properly been determined by the Arbitrator and accordingly, prayed for just and proper compensation. The question which has been raised by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is covered by Section 34(2)(3)

of the Act of 1996. It is submitted that the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India, for which, explanation has been appended to the provision, according to which, if the award is in contravention with the fundamental policy of the Indian law can be set-aside. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh and Others, (2019) 9 SCC 304 has declared Section 3-J of the Act of 1956 as an ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court even in the cases of arbitration and determination of compensation by the Arbitrator under the Act of 1956, the aggrieved person is entitled for solatium over the compensation. Therefore, as the solatium has not been granted, the Arbitrator has committed error of law as well as Civil Court has committed error in deciding the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. It is further submitted that the application under Section 34(4) of the Act of 1996 was also submitted before the Civil Court along with an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 for fresh adjudication of the question of solatium by the Arbitrator, however, that has not been decided.

5 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has revisited the law in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) thrice and by its latest judgment dated 25.03.2026 passed in Review Petition (Civil) No.2528 of 2025 (parties National Highways Authority of India Vs. Tarsem Singh and Others) it is held that the land owners shall be entitled to interest and interest on solatium only from the date on which such claims were raised. It is further submitted that in any case without admitting if the appellant is entitled for solatium that would be only from the date when the appellant has raised objection in regard to non-payment of solatium. It is further submitted that the scope of Sections 34 and 37 of the Act of 1996 is very narrow and cannot be enlarged to the extent that the Civil Court and the High Court in the Appellate jurisdiction and can go beyond the grounds of challenge under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. It is submitted that as the ground of non-grant of solatium is not falling within the grounds mentioned under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, therefore, at this stage, this Court under Appellate jurisdiction cannot interfere in the impugned order as well as in the arbitral award.

Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not disputed by the respondent that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the land owners are entitled for solatium even under the National Highways Act. The date of application of the notification as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paras - 46, 47 and 48 that is to be determined by the Arbitrator. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondent that as initial determination of the compensation was done prior to 01.01.2015, therefore, from the date when first time the appellant has raised the question in regard to non-payment of solatium is to be dealt from the date when it has been raised.

It is not in dispute that the appellant had preferred an application under Section 34(4) of the Act of 1996 before the Civil Court along with an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 for setting aside the award. It is the case of the appellant that in the application itself the relief has been sought for just and appropriate compensation which also includes payment of solatium. The court has not dealt with the question and also not dealt with the application submitted under Section 34(4) of the Act of 1996.

From perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the Court has not dealt with the application submitted by the appellant under Section 34(4) of the Act of 1996. As the Hon'ble Apex Court has already held that the land owners even in the case of acquisition under the National Highways Act are entitled for solatium, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court that can be a ground of challenge under Section 34(2)(3)(ii) of the Act of 1996. However, the quantum of compensation is not the domain of the High Court or the Civil Court under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, that is to be decided by the Arbitrator. Therefore, under Section 34(4) of the Act of 1996, the Civil Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Arbitrator to decide the quantum of compensation and the application as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra). Therefore, to the limited extent, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the 24th District Judge, Jabalpur is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the Arbitrator to decide question of solatium absolutely in consonance with the law laid down in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Tarsem Singh and Others, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304 as well as in the Review Petition (Civil) No.2528 of 2025 dated 25.03.2026 (parties National Highways Authority of India Vs. Tarsem Singh and Others).

At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that due to clerical or typographical mistake, the identity of the land in A.A.No.53/2024 and A.A.No.55/2024 has wrongly been mentioned in the award by mentioning the wrong Khasra numbers. Therefore, the Arbitrator is directed to look into aforesaid cases whether the identity of the property is properly mentioned or not.

Parties are directed to appear before the Arbitrator on 16.07.2026.

With the aforesaid all the appeals are disposed of.