1 2025:CGHC:33928-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 485 of 2025 1 - National Highway Authority Of India Through Chairman G5, G6 Sector 10, Dwarka New Delhi -110075 2 - The Regional Manager National Highway Authority Of India, Plot No.159, Bungalow No.1, Shubhankar Apartments Ramnagar Ambazari Hilltop Nagpur 440033 Maharashtra 3 - Project Director National Highway Authority Of India Project Implementation Unit Raipur (Wrongly Not Mentioned In Impugned Order Hose No.5196 Behind Btit College Shankar Nagar Raipur 492007 District Raipur Chhattisgarh 4 - Project Director National Highway Authority Of India D-61, Hig-1, (Akash Abhilasha Parisar) Behind Hightech Bus Stand Tifra Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(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 2 - Kanaklata Agrawal W/o Shri Ashutosh Agrawal Aged About 55 Years R/o Malti Devi Rice Mill, Simga, Balodagazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 3 - Competent Authority (Under Nhai) Sub- Divisional Magistrate (Revenue) Bhatapara District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.18 18:48:52 +0530 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 18.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel appearing for respondent. 2. The present writ appeal is preferred assailing the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 328/2020 (Ashutosh Agrawal and Another vs. National Highway Authority of India and Others), whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petitioner filed by the respondent / writ petitioner. 3. It has been pointed out by learned counsel, appearing for the appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent that in an identical matter, this Bench had dismissed WA No. 476/2025 (National Highway Authority of India and Others vs. Ashutosh Agrawal and Another) vide order dated 15.07.2025, observing as follows : “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 3 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. 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. 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 4 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 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.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present case is identical to that of WA No. 476/2025, this appeal may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this appeal is 5 identical to WA No. 476/2025, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in WA No. 476/2025. 5. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed in terms of the order dated 15.07.2025 passed in WA No. 476/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet