- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47987 WP No. 21812 of 2022 C/W WP No. 21508 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.21812 OF 2022 (LA-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.21508 OF 2022 (LA-RES) IN WP No.21812/2022 BETWEEN: SMT. GEETHA SHIVAMURTHY W/O SRI K. SHIVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS MAJOR, R/AT NO.43, ‘SAMRUDHI NILAYA’, 9TH ‘A’ CROSS, A– SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560064. …PETITIONER (BY SRI N. DEVADAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. ANASUYA DEVI K.S., ADVOCATE AND SRI MANMOHIT DAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY (MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS) G-5 & 6, SECTOR-10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110075. 2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY (LA) CUM SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS – NH-4 (NOW NH-48) KSRTC DEPOT ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501. Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47987 WP No. 21812 of 2022 C/W WP No. 21508 of 2022 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NH-4, CHITRADURGA-577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHOBHITH N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PETITION IS ENTITLED FOR SOLATIUM AND INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT AWARDED AND THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE TO PAY SOLATIUM AND INTEREST UNDER SECTION 23(2) AND SECTION 28 PROVISO OF LA ACT, 1894, AS PER THE LAW DECLARED BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF UOI – Vs.– TARSEM SINGH – 2019 (9) SCC 304 AND SUNDER –Vs.– UOI 2001 (7) SCC 211 – 5 JUDGES BENCH AND ETC. IN W.P. NO.21508/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI P. YOGANANDAM, S/O. PALANIYAPPA GOUNDER, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, 2. SRI K. AYYASWAMY S/O. P. KUTTIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 3. SRI N. SHEKAR S/O. NATARAJ .R AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 4. SRI R.P. RAMASWAMY S/O. PALANIYAPPA GOUNDER, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 5. SMT. R. KALYANI W/O. RAMANATHAN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47987 WP No. 21812 of 2022 C/W WP No. 21508 of 2022 6. SRI M. BALASUBRAMANI S/O. MYLUSWAMY GOUNDER, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 7. SMT. A. KALAISELVI W/O. LATE ANNADORAI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 8. SRI. S. NATARAJ S/O. LATE SELLAPPA GOUNDER, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, 9. SRI. K. THANGAMANI S/O. LATE KARPANNA GOUNDER, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 10. SRI. N. NAGARAJA S/O. LATE NAGA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 11. SRI. V. GOVINDARAJU S/O. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 12. SRI. SRINIVASA NAIK. R S/O. LATE RANGA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 13. SRI. R.A. RAMESH S/O. R.A. SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 14. SMT. KANAGESHWARI W/O. R. A. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 15. SRI. R. A. MAHALINGAM S/O. R. A. SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 16. SRI. KRISHNA NAIK S/O. LATE GANYA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47987 WP No. 21812 of 2022 C/W WP No. 21508 of 2022 17. SRI. P. DHARMARAJU S/O. B. K. PALANIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 18. SRI. M. CHINNASWAMY S/O. MUTHUSWAMY GOUNDER, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, 19. SRI. D. VELUSWAMY S/O. N. DEVI GOUNDER, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 20. SRI. R. DEVARAJ S/O. K. RAMASWAMY GOUNDER, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 21. SRI. K. VENUGOPAL S/O. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 22. SRI. LOGANATHAN .R S/O. RAMASWAMY GOUNDER, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 23. SRI. R. LAKSHMAN S/O. SRI. RANGASWAMY GOUNDER, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 24. SRI. V. KUMARASWAMY S/O. VELUSWAMY GOUNDER, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF: ADIVALA FARM – PATTREHALLI, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI N. DEVADAS, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. ANASUYA DEVI K.S., ADVOCATE) - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47987 WP No. 21812 of 2022 C/W WP No. 21508 of 2022 AND: 1. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY (MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS) G-5 & 6, SECTOR-10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110 075. REPRESENTED BY DGM (LA). 2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY (LA) CUM SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS – NH-4 (NOW NH-48) KSRTC DEPOT ROAD, CHITRADURGA-577501. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NH-4, CHITRADURGA-577501. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHOBHITH N. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED FOR SOLATIUM AND INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT AWARDED AND THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE TO PAY SOLATIUM & INTEREST UNDER SECTION 23(2) AND SECTION 28 PROVISO OF LA ACT, 1894, AS PER THE LAW DECLARED BY THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF UOI – Vs.– TARSEM SINGH – 2019 (9) SCC 304 AND SUNDER – Vs.– UOI 2001 (7) SCC 211 – 5 JUDGES BENCH AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47987 WP No. 21812 of 2022 C/W WP No. 21508 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following prayers: “W.P. No.21812/2022 1) Declare that the Petitioner is entitled for Solatium & Interest on the amount of compensation amount awarded and the Respondents are liable to pay Solatium & Interest u/s.23(2) and S.28 Proviso of LA Act, 1894, as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UOI - Vs.- Tarsem Singh – 2019 (9) SCC 304 and Sunder -Vs.- UOI 2001 (7) SCC 211 – 5 Judges Bench; (2) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or by issuing appropriate direction to the Respondents to consider the claim petition of the Petitioner as per (ANNEXURE – A) and settle the claim for Solatium & Interest as per the provisions of S.23(2) and S.28 Proviso of the LA Act, 1894 R/w. S.3-G of the NH Act, 1956 as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI - Vs.- Tarsem Singh – 2019 (9) SCC 304 within a reasonable time that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to fix for payment and; 3) Issue such other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47987 WP No. 21812 of 2022 C/W WP No. 21508 of 2022 circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice and Equity.” W.P. NO.21508/2022 (1) Declare that the petitioners are entitled for Solatium & Interest on the amount of compensation amount awarded and the Respondents are liable to pay Solatium & Interest u/s.23(2) and S.28 Proviso of LA Act, 1894, as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of UOI – Vs.- Tarsem Singh – 2019 (9) SCC 304 and Sunder -Vs.- UOI 2001 (7) SCC 211 5 Judges Bench; (2) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or by issuing appropriate direction to the Respondents to consider the claim petitions of the petitioners shown in ANNEXURES – B & B1 and settle the claim for Solatium & Interest as per the provisions of S.23(2) and S.28 Proviso of the LA Act, 1894 R/w. S.3-G of the NH Act, 1956 as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs.- Tarsem Singh – 2019 (9) SCC 304 within a reasonable time that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to fix for payment and; (3) Issue such other appropriate writ or direction as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47987 WP No. 21812 of 2022 C/W WP No. 21508 of 2022 circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice and Equity” 2. Heard Sri N. Devadas, learned Senior Counsel appears for Smt. Anasuya Devi K.S and Sri Manmohit Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shobhith N Shetty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. Both the learned counsel fairly submit that the issue involved herein is no longer res integra. In Union of India and Another Vs. Tarsem Singh and Others1 (Tarsem Singh), the Apex Court has categorically held that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (‘LA Act’ for short) relating to solatium under Section 23(2) and interest under the proviso to Section 28 are applicable even to acquisition made under the National Highways Act, 1956 (‘NH Act, 1956’ for short). Thus, the entitlement of land losers to solatium and interest in acquisition under the NH Act, 1956 stands conclusively settled by the Apex Court. 1 (2019) 9 SCC 304 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47987 WP No. 21812 of 2022 C/W WP No. 21508 of 2022 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Civil Miscellaneous application filed by the National Highway Authority, has been dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2025 and in paragraph No.26 thereof, the Apex Court expressly directed the competent authority to compute the amount of solatium and interest strictly in terms of the directions issued in Tarsem Singh’s case, which reads as under: “26. Leave is granted in the other connected matters, and all the appeals are disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to calculate the amount of ‘Solatium’ and ‘interest’ in accordance with the directions issued in Tarsem Singh (supra). In this context, the appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.52538/2023 is dismissed, as the challenge therein pertains to the High Court’s refusal to award Additional Market Value as another component of the compensation, while ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ have already been granted.” (emphasis supplied) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47987 WP No. 21812 of 2022 C/W WP No. 21508 of 2022 5. It is further submitted by learned Senior Counsel that in view of the dismissal of the application before the Apex Court, coupled with the specific direction issued therein requiring the competent authority to compute solatium and interest in accordance with Tarsem Singh’s case, the respondents herein are bound to extend the same benefit for the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the National Highway Authority represented by the Union of India, have already preferred Review Petition (Civil) Dairy No(s).*44096/2025 (arising out of impugned judgment and order in M.A.No.1773/2021 dated 04.02.2025 in C.A.No.7064/2019. It is contended that in view of the pendency of the said review proceedings, the petitioner’s entitlement to solatium and interest is yet to attain finality. 7. In response, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the legal position declared in *Corrected vide Court Order dated 12.12.2025 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47987 WP No. 21812 of 2022 C/W WP No. 21508 of 2022 Tarsem Singh’s case, has attained finality. It is urged that mere pendency of a review petition cannot dilute or postpone the operation of entitlement of petitioner’s claim for solatium and interest, when there is no stay in review petition. It is submitted at the most, the respondents’ liability to effect payment may be made subject to the out come of the pending review, but cannot be deferred on that ground. 8. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner carries considerable force. The entitlement of solatium and interest under Sections 23(2) and 28 of the LA Act as applied to acquisition under the NH act, 1956 by the decision in Tarsem Singh’s case, stands conclusively settled. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47987 WP No. 21812 of 2022 C/W WP No. 21508 of 2022 ii. The respondents are directed to compute the amount of “solatium, and interest”, payable to the petitioner under Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 strictly in accordance with the law declared in Tarsem Singh’s case as reiterated in subsequent order dated 04.02.2025 within a period of six weeks *from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. iii. The above payment of solatium, and interest, however, be subject to the final outcome of Review Petition (Civil) Dairy No(s).*44096/2025 filed by National Highway authority before the Apex Court. iv. In the event, respondent No.1-National Highway succeeds in the said review proceeding, respondent No.1-authority is at liberty to seek for revival or modification of this order. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 *Corrected vide Court Order dated 12.12.2025