1 2025:CGHC:32834-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 476 of 2025 1 National Highway Authority Of India Through Chairman, G5, G6 Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075........(Respondent No. 1) 2 The Regional Manager, National Highway Authority Of India, Plot No. 159, Bungalow No. 1, Shubhankar Apartments, Ramnagar, Ambazari Hilltop, Nagpur 440033, Maharashtra..........(Respondent No. 2) 3 Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, Project Implementation Unit Raipur (Wrongly Not Mentioned In Impugned Order), House No. 5196, Behind Btit College, Shankar Nagar, Raipur 492007, District Raipur Chhattisgarh...........(Respondent No. 3) 4 Project Director, National Highway Authority Of India, D-61, Hig-I (Akash, Abhilasha Parisar), Behind Hightech Bus Stand, Tifra, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh..........(Respondent No. 4) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 Ashutosh Agrawal S/o Late Shri Kumbhaj Lal Agrawal, Aged About 55 Years R/o Malti Devi Rice Mill, Simga, Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh..........Petitioner JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.07.18 19:14:43 +0530 2 2 Competent Authority (Under Nhai)/sub Divisional Magistrate (Revenue), Bhatapara, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh...........Respondent No. 5 ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede along with Mr. Aniruddh Singh, Advocates For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ankit Singhal along with Mr. Ashish Mittal, Advocates For Respondent No. 2/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.07.2025 1. The appellant/respondent in writ petition has filed this writ appeal assailing the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No. 316 of 2020, by which, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner. 2. The brief facts as projected by the petitioner is that in W.P.(C) No.316/2020, lands bearing Survey Nos.1460/2 & 1460/4, area 4,890 sq. mtrs., were acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (for brevity, NHAI) for widening of NH-200. In the case, acquisition commenced on 31-5-2011 and final award was 3 passed on 22-9-2012. In Award dated 22-9-2012, in respect of W.P.(C) No.316/2020, market value of land was determined as ₹5,53,62,816/- and in award dated 22-9-2012. However, there is no dispute between the parties regarding market value as determined in the awards. Although the writ petitioner claimed solatium @ 30% of the market value under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, Act of 1894) along with additional amount @ 12% of the market value under Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1894 with statutory interest under Section 28 of the said Act of 1894, the awards are silent and the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (for brevity, CALA), Simga did not consider the claims of the respondents. However, on 19-9-2019, Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for brevity, Act of 1956) was struck down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another v Tarsem Singh & Others reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304 and immediately thereafter the respondent herein submitted representation on 22-10-2019 followed by demand of justice notice dated 13-12-2019. Since there was total inaction in case of the respondent and since the NHAI did not take any action, the petitioner therein/respondent herein filed Writ Petitions on 13-1-2020 stating inter alia that on account of the fact that Section 3J of the Act of 1956 interdicting the payment of solatium and interest was struck down by the Supreme Court, the petitioner therein/respondent is entitled for the amount of solatium 4 and interest. It has been pleaded that non-payment of solatium and interest and denial of aforesaid claim would directly amount to defying the judgment and authority of the Supreme Court and thus, the respondents have claimed such amount. Total claim made by the respondent herein/ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.316/2020 is ₹5,28,28,061/-. It has been prayed that appropriate direction be issued to the authorities to release the amount of solatium and interest payable to the respondent herein as per claim mentioned in paragraph 9.6 of the Writ Petition with costs along with future interest till the date of payment. 3. In the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “16. As such, the argument so raised on behalf of Respondent/NHAI that the judgment in Tarsem Singh would apply prospectively has been rejected by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh. However, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent/NHAI, relying upon paragraph 21 of Tarsem Singh, has contended that it would amount to reopening of cases that have already attained finality and the decision in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra) has been relied upon. 17. The award passed in W.P.(C) No.316/2020 would 5 show that the Petitioners herein, as recorded by CALA in order-sheet dated 1.6.2012, have raised objection before the CALA seeking 30% solatium in view of the judgment passed by the Madras High Court in T. Chakrapani (supra). A careful perusal of the said order-sheet dated 1.6.2012 would show that the question of grant of 30% solatium was not decided and it was only stated that the claimants were given to understand about their objections and in the order- sheet dated 13.9.2012 also all the objections were treated as disposed of and ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ part was not decided. The matter was not assailed preferably in view of the legislative bar contained in Section 3J of the Act of 1956, as the constitutional validity of Section 3J was in question. It was first declared unconstitutional by the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Lalita and Others v. Union of India and Others1 on 11.10.2002 and subsequently it was also struck down by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Golden Iron and Steel Forging v. Union of India and Others2 on 28.3.2008 and thereafter by the Madras High Court also in T. Chakrapani (supra) on 4.3.2011. However, the decision in T. Chakrapani 1 ILR 2003 Kar 259 2 2008 SCC OnLine P&H 498 6 (supra) was stayed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the month of April, 2011 and the NHAI challenged the judgments in T. Chakrapani (supra) and Golden Iron and Steel Forging (supra) before the Supreme Court. Ultimately, on 21.7.2016, the Supreme Court disposed of the batch of the batch of appeals challenging the decision in T. Chakrapani (supra), following a statement made by the learned Solicitor General of India that ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ would be paid on acquisitions made under the Act of 1956. However, the batch of appeals challenging the decision in Golden Iron and Steel Forging (supra) remained pending for consideration. Subsequently, in two other appeals brought before the Supreme Court, one from the Delhi High Court and another from the Punjab & Haryana High Court following Golden Iron and Steel Forging (supra), the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunita Mehra and Another v. Union of India and Others3, disposed of both the appeals holding that ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ would be awardable to cases pending as on 28.3.2008. Consequently, on 3.8.2017, the appeals challenging the decision in Golden Iron and Steel Forging 3 (2019) 17 SCC 672 7 (supra) were withdrawn by the NHAI. Eventually, on 19.9.2019, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Tarsem Singh1 giving quietus to the dispute declaring Section 3J of the Act of 1956 as unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it has been held that the provisions of the Act of 1894 relating to ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ as contained in Sections 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable under Section 28 will apply to the acquisitions made under the Act of 1956. 18. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has placed his strong reliance in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra) in which it has been held that award cannot be treated as a decision; it is in law an offer or tender of the compensation determined by the Collector to the owner of the property under acquisition. It has been further held that if the owner does not accept the offer, Section 18 gives him the statutory right of having the question determined by Court, and it is the amount of compensation which the Court may determine that would bind both the owner and the Collector, and it is on the amount thus determined judicially that the 8 acquisition proceedings would be concluded. 19 Here, though the amount of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ is claimed, but it was not expressly decided by the CALA preferably on the view that it was pending consideration before the constitutional Court. Ultimately, on 19.9.2019, it was decided by their Lordships of the Supreme Court making clear the legal position on the grant of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ vis-à- vis the Act of 1956. Immediately thereafter, the Petitioners filed representations, dated 22.10.2019, 20.11.2019, 26.11.2019 and 23.12.2019 and eventually filed Writ Petitions on 13.1.2020 before this Court. As such, it cannot be held that a concluded case is being reopened by the Petitioners by claiming ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ on the amount of award, as the Petitioners are not claiming reconsideration of the market value/revaluation of the compensation amount. As such, the objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/NHAI that grant of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ would amount to reopening of a concluded case/reopening of the case which has attained finality, does not stand in light of Tarsem Singh2. 9 20. Consequently, in the view of the discussion and legal analysis made herein-above, the CALA i.e. Respondent No.5 is directed to calculate the amount of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ expeditiously in accordance with the directions issued in Tarsem Singh1 and Tarsem Singh2. However, in view of the decision in Tarsem Singh2, the Petitioners would not be entitled to Additional Market Value under Section 23(1A) of the Act of 1956. 21. Accordingly, both the Writs Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated herein-above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 4. The writ appeal has been filed by the appellant NHAI reiterating the same plea challenging the order dated 17.02.2025 passed in WPC No. 316 of 2020 and praying that the petitioner therein/ respondent No. 1 has already been paid compensation on 22.09.2012 and no lis was pending in before any court and it is after delay of 8 years the writ petition was filed and it is just after thought after the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Tarsem Singh in which relief has been extended to aggrieved parties and thus it is an already concluded case, since the award dated 22.09.2012 has attained finally thus the appeal needs to be allowed. 10 5. Learned counsel for the NHAI submits that after passing of the Award dated 22.9.2012, the respondents did not chose to file application under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 seeking the benefits and directly filed writ petitions after almost 8 years of passing of the said Award, i.e., in the year 2020, and during that period, no reference or appeal was filed or pending in any Court on behalf of the respondent. He would further submit that the respondent has accepted the compensation amount declared in the subject matter by Award dated 22.9.2012 and he has not disputed the same though preferred representation and legal notice to the NHAI seeking ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ later on, prior to filing of writ petition, but multiple representations will not extend the period of limitation for filing the case. Since the constitutional validity of Section 3J of the Act of 1956 has been upheld by two or three High Courts, the respondents ought not to have waited for 8 years to claim solatium by filing the captioned writ petitions and in the present case, since the respondents have also accepted the compensation amount of the Award dated 22.9.2012, the present case has to be encompassed as a “concluded case” and, as such, the respondents’ case has to be rejected on the ground of a “concluded case”. It has also been submitted that since there is ‘change in law’ pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh by which Section 3J of the Act of 1956 has been declared unconstitutional, the respondents would not be entitled 11 for solatium and interest, in light of the decision of the Madras High Court delivered in the matter of T. Chakrapani v. Union of India reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2881. In this regard, the objection of the respondents is recorded in order-sheet dated 1.6.2012 passed by CALA. 6. Learned counsel relying upon the recent decision dated 4.2.2025 of the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh, would further submit that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that the cases that have already attained finality should not be reopened. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Raja Harishchandra Raj Singh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Another4 reported in 1962 SCR 676 to submit that in the instant case by passing of the Award dated 22.9.2012 the issue of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ stands concluded, as the respondents had the remedy under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 and the respondents have not questioned the Award dated 22.9.2012. As such, the Award dated 22.9.2012 has attained finality and it would come under ‘concluded case’. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner would submit that the argument raised by NHAI that it is a ‘concluded case’ as the respondent did not challenge the Award dated 22.9.2012 under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 before 4 1962 SCR 676 12 the statutory arbitrator, is not made out and the decision of the Supreme Court in Raja Harishchandra Raj Singh (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the said decision negated the plea of the NHAI that the Award dated 22.9.2012 passed by CALA in the instant case amounts to a ‘concluded case’ and it has been held therein that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be treated as decision and it amounts to be determined judicially that the acquisition proceeding would be completed. As such, the principles of law laid down in the Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the instant case by the Award dated 22.9.2012, the CALA has only determined the amount of compensation less the market value of the land without touching the issue of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ and thereby vide Award dated 22.9.2012 only the issue with regard to amount of compensation stands concluded and grant of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ was neither considered nor adjudicated leaving the matter open, as the constitutional validity of Section 3J of the Act of 1956 was pending consideration before the Supreme Court. Therefore, in light of the Order dated 4.2.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in in Tarsem Singh2, the respondents are entitled only for ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ excluding additional amount under Section 23 (1A) of the Act of 1894 as per paragraph 26 of the Order dated 4.2.2025. As such, the Writ Appeal 13 deserve to be dismissed and necessary directions be issued to CALA, Simga to calculate solatium @ 30% on the determined market value; award interest @ 9% for a period of one year from the date of dispossession and then award interest @ 15% from such date of expiry of one year till date of actual payment on the amount of solatium determined on the market value; and grant liberty to the respondents to submit representation giving particulars about the date of dispossession, market value as determined in the award and amount of solatium followed by interest, in the interest of justice. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the record. 9. Upon bare perusal of the impugned order and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition that as such, it cannot be held that a concluded case is being reopened by the Petitioner therein/ respondent by claiming ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ on the amount of award, as the respondent/writ petitioner is not claiming reconsideration of the market value/revaluation of the compensation amount. As such, the objection raised by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the NHAI that grant of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ would amount to reopening of a concluded case/reopening of the case which has attained finality, does not stand in light of Tarsem Singh. 14 10. Further perusal of the impugned order it is quite vivid that the contention of the NHAI that it is a ‘concluded case’ as the respondent/writ petitioner did not challenge the Award dated 22.9.2012 under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 before the statutory arbitrator, is not made out and the decision of the Supreme Court in Raja Harishchandra Raj Singh (supra) is also not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the said decision negated the plea of the NHAI that the Award dated 22.9.2012 passed by CALA in the instant case amounts to a ‘concluded case’ and it has been held therein that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be treated as decision and it amounts to be determined judicially that the acquisition proceeding would be completed. 11. In view of the aforesaid discusssion it is manifes that the principles of law laid down in the matter of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the instant case by the Award dated 22.9.2012, the CALA has only determined the amount of compensation less the market value of the land without touching the issue of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ and thereby vide Award dated 22.9.2012 only the issue with regard to amount of compensation stands concluded and grant of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ was neither considered nor adjudicated leaving the matter open, as the constitutional validity of Section 3J of the Act of 1956 was pending consideration before 15 the Supreme Court. Therefore, in light of the Order dated 4.2.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in in Tarsem Singh, the respondent/writ petitioner is entitled only for ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ excluding additional amount under Section 23 (1A) of the Act of 1894 as per paragraph 26 of the Order dated 4.2.2025. 12. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Gowri