1 2026:CGHC:22451 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 695 of 2021 Order Reserved on: 6.4.2026 Order Delivered on: 13.5.2026 1 - Rajeshwar Gatre S/o Late Mayaram Gatre, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Temri, Tesil Nayagadh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sunita Bai W/o Arjun Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Temri, Tesil Nayagadh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ramnath Sahu S/o Baliram Sahu, Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Temri, Tesil Nayagadh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Ramsahay Dewangan S/o Buluva Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Temri, Tesil Nayagadh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Santosh Kumar Sahu S/o Milu Ram Aged About 54 Years R/o Village Temri, Tesil Nayagadh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 6 - Mohan Dewangan S/o Barati Dewangan Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Temri, Tesil Nayagadh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Bishat Dewangan S/o Barati Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Temri, Tesil Nayagadh District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Competent Officer (Land Acquisition) Cum Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 4 - National Highway Authority Of India Project Implementation Unit Anupam Nagar Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamal Kishore Patel, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate. 3 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That this Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to direct the respondents for awarding solatium and interest to the petitioners. 10.2 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. In this petition, the petitioners are seeking mandamus for directing the respondents to give amount of solatium and interest which has not been paid to the petitioners on account of acquisition of their lands and thereafter passing an award dated 11.6.2012 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 07/A-82 of the year 2011-12 in respect of lands of the petitioners situated at Village-Temri P.H.N. 37 (wrongly mentioned as 35 in the top of award). 3. The land as well as area of the petitioners are as follows:- Petitioner No. Khasra No. Area in Hectare Amount Sr. No. of Compensation Chart 1. 138/3 0.020 3,84.560/- 19 2. 668/1 0.010 1,92,280/ 62 3. 669, 670 0.030, 0.040 5,76,140/- 7,69,120/- 64 65 4. 720/4, 620/4 0.020, 0.020 3,84,560/- 3,84,560/- 74 61 4 5. 293 0.040 7,69,120/- 36 6. 51/2 0.020 3,84,560/- 2 7. 51/1 0.020 3,84,560/- 1 4. Though vide award dated 11.6.2012 passed by the National Highway Authority of India Project Implementation Unit Anupam Nagar, Raipur, award has been passed in respect of each of the petitioners as per aforesaid chart, however, amount of solatium and interest has not been paid as such the petitioners have filed this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are required to be given solatium and interest which has not been paid to the petitioners as per Section 23 (2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1897 in addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of 30% on market value, in consideration of compulsory nature of the acquisition as such considering the aforesaid provision as also the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304, the petitioners are entitled to get solatium amount along with interest. 6. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 4/NHAI submits that the grievance as raised by the petitioners basically is in respect of calculation of compensation and for that there lies an alternative remedy to raise such an objection for redressal of the aforesaid grievance. He further submits that according to Section 3G (5), 6 and (7) of the Act, 1956, the grievance of the petitioners 5 can only be raised under the aforesaid sections before the concerned Arbitration, the petitioners are having alternative remedy to approach before the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government as per Section 3G (5) of the Act who shall pass appropriate orders after due hearing of the parties and unless and until such mandatory provisions is exhausted the petitioners cannot approach directly before this Court even for grant of solatium and interest amount. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court is having power and authority to pass appropriate orders as the amount of solatium and interest is not disputed one but it is provided under the law as such this Court can pass very well order while granting solatium and interest part. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. From the perusal of the record and from the reliefs sought by the petitioners it is quite vivid that amount of compensation has already been received by each of the petitioners the only amount which has not been received by the petitioners is in respect of solatium and interest amount as per Section 3G of the Act, 1956, there is procedure for determination of the amount payable as compensation. 10. Section 3G reads as under:- 6 "3G. Determination of amount payable as compensation.-(1)Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. (2) Where the right of any user or any right in the nature of easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land. (3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. (4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and 7 to state the nature of their respective interest in such land. (5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. (7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub- section (5) as the case may be, shall take into consideration (a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3A; (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land; (c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously 8 affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings; (d) if any, consequences of acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change." (Emphasis supplied)” 11. Section 3G (5) is clearly mandates that if the amount of compensation is not acceptable to either of the parties the amount in dispute shall be determine by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government the competent authority or the Arbitrator while determining the amount shall take into consideration regarding market value, the damage and any consequences of the acquisition of land which has been mentioned in Section 7 and quoted above. Though even in case of alternative remedy this Court can pass order while leaving the recourse of alternative remedy, however, when there is specific provisions mentioned in the National Highway Act under Section 3G (5) it would not be desirable to leave the aforesaid alternative remedy and to directly entertain this petition for passing of the aforesaid order. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench of this Court has passed specific order while not entertaining direct writ petition for any dispute in respect of amount of compensation and relegating the concerned petitioners to approach before the 9 authorities concerned under Section 3G (5) of the Act in order to get the entire amount of compensation. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Highways Authority of India vs. Tarsem Sinngh and others, 2026 SCC Online SC 481, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “10. The undisputed position of law, settled by successive judgements of the High Courts and this Court, is that the landowners who suffer acquisition of their land under the NH Act are entitled to interest, solatium, and interest on solatium as part of their compensation. In Tarsem Singh-I, this Court recognised “that the Government itself is of the view that solatium and interest should be granted even in cases that arise between 1997 and 2015.” It is also not in question that such benefits shall be payable in line with those granted in the 1894 Act or the 2013 Act, as the case may be. 12. This Court is conscious of the legal necessity of giving quietus to decided matters. Once a judgement or an order passed by a court in a particular case has attained finality and is not the subject matter of further challenge before a prescribed forum, a subsequent change in the judicial interpretation would not entail a reversal of such decision inter-se the parties to that case. 10 In fact, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, including both of us, in State (NCT of Delhi) v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd.9 has observed that such overturning of the principle of law cannot sustain even a formal review of the original decision once the same has attained finality. As such, we find that while, as a matter of legal principle, the landowners may be entitled to solatium and interest, they cannot be permitted to reopen old, stale claims which have been decided conclusively by a court of law. 13. However, where final remedy has not been exhausted and statutory appeals or applications have been filed after inordinate delay, claiming the benefit of ‘interest’, ‘solatium’, or ‘interest on solatium’, a balance must be struck between the entitlement of the landowners and the equities operating against their delay. A similar balancing exercise is usually undertaken by this Court while considering cases for enhancement of land acquisition compensation in a belated appeal. The notable method used in such cases is the denial of ‘interest’ payable on the enhanced amount of compensation for the period of delay. A similar exercise must be undertaken for the land acquisition cases arising from the NH Act in the matter of grant of ‘solatium’, ‘interest’, and ‘interest on solatium’. D. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS 11 14. Considering the facts and circumstances explained in the instant proceedings along with the various submissions placed on record and with a view to balancing the equities regarding delay and the entitlements of the landowners, we issue the following directions: (i) All landowners whose claims re: the quantum and/or components of compensation for their lands acquired under the NH Act were alive on or after 28.03.2008, i.e., they were pending before one of the prescribed fora, shall be entitled to seek addition of ‘interest’, ‘solatium’, and ‘interest on the solatium’ to their compensation claim; (ii) 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; and (iii) If the claims of the landowners stood concluded prior to 28.03.2008, with no further appeal, Writ 12 Petition, Special Leave Petition, etc., then such landowners are not entitled to seek reopening, review, or modification of the said decision for the purpose of claiming ‘solatium’ or ‘interest’. 15. The instant Review Petition, along with all pending applications, stand disposed of accordingly. 16. Delay is condoned and leave is granted in the tagged Special Leave Petitions, and while setting aside the impugned judgements of the High Courts, the matters are remanded to the concerned High Courts with a request to recalculate the ‘interest’, ‘solatium’, and ‘interest on solatium’ payable to the landowners. Such computation shall be strictly in accordance with the directions issued hereinabove. If the landowners are held to fall within the category of Paragraph 14(ii) then the payment has to be made accordingly. Similarly, in the cases of landowners who are covered by Paragraph 14(iii), no such benefit shall be granted. 14. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Balmukund Dewangan & Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in WA No. 140/2022 and other connected matters passed on 10.12.2024, the Division Bench has observed as under:- 13 “The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.07/2019 posed the following questions:- “(f) If there is patent arbitrariness in the ‘decision making process’ and the decision taken, should the party be relegated to the remedy by way of Arbitration and whether the course pursued by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be justified; more so, where there is no disputed question of fact ? (g) Is the alternate remedy a bar of law, or rule of convenience ?” The Division Bench of this Court in para 17 held as under:- “17. After hearing both the sides and also in view of the precedents cited from both the sides, we do not have any doubt to hold that power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is even wider of the power of the Apex Court under Article 32 cannot be curtailed by any statute. The existence of alternate remedy is more a 'rule of convenience' and the parties would be relegated to pursue such remedy, under normal circumstances. But if special circumstances are involved or whether the proceeding under challenge is per se arbitrary and illegal or if it has resulted in total miscarriage of justice, the discretionary power vested in this Court to have the 14 matter considered under Article 226 is always there, to be invoked. ” 15. In light of aforesaid pronouncements of the law it is well settled that the petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation in respect of solatium and interest amount and there is no dispute on this, however, the petitioners have to avail alternative remedy available under the law i.e. approaching before the concerned Arbitrator for redressal of their grievances. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the facts that the Division Bench of this Court has already passed an order while directing the concerned petitioners to approach before the competent authority/Arbitrator for redressal of their grievances in respect of solatium and interest part as such the present petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned Arbitrator for redressal of their grievances since the award has already been passed way back in the year 2012 and since then the amount of solatium as well as interest part is not granted to the petitioners as such if the petitioners files application before the concerned Arbitrator within a month the concerned Arbitrator is directed to decide the same in accordance with law within further period of 3 months so that the petitioners may get fruits of their land while getting appropriate compensation in lieu of acquisition of their land within such time frame. The petitioners have filed this petition in the year 2021 itself and as such the concerned authorities are directed to consider this aspect also 15 and to pass appropriate orders for compensation in respect of solatium and interest in accordance with law. 17. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 6.4.2026 13.5.2026 15.5.2026 Raghu Jat