[2026:RJ-JP:17344] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20921/2025 1. Satya Pal S/o Mohar Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Flat No. 112, Athena Apartment, C-2, Sawai Jai Singh Highway, Jaipur, Bani Park, Jaipur Rajasthan 302016 2. Smt. Snehlata W/o Satyapal, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Flat No. 112, Athena Apartment, C-2, Sawai Jai Singh Highway, Jaipur, Bani Park, Jaipur Rajasthan 302016 ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. Competent Authority Land Acquisition Cum Additional District Magistrate, Third, Jaipur, Collectorate, Bani Park, Jaipur 3. National Highways Authority Of India Through Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Jaipur D-148, Behind Rsed Sub-Station, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur 302021 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Sharma with Mr. Vishal Karnani, Mr. Vijay Kumar Mittal and Ms. Bhuwaneshwari Mittal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parag Rastogi Mr. V.D. Gathala Mr. Arnav Singh for Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 24/04/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with following prayers: “It is, therefore humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and allowed and the record [2026:RJ-JP:17344] (2 of 4) [CW-20921/2025] pertaining to the case may be called for from Respondents and:- i) By issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to compute and pay the Petitioners, 30% solatium and 12% additional benefits and other statutory benefits along with interest in accordance with the principle of law as laid down in Union of India vs Tarsem Singh and others reported in 2019:INSC:1061, and in terms of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 1773/2021 in Civil Appeal No. 7064/2019 titled as Union of India and Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors. reported in 2025:INSC:146, 2025 SCC Online 235, in a time bound manner. ii) By issuance of appropriate writ, order or directions to the Respondents to decide the representation filed by the Petitioners for determine and disburse 30% Solatium and 12% additional benefits and other statutory benefits along with interest for the acquired land of the Petitioners in terms of law as laid down in Union of India vs Tarsem Singh and others reported in 2019:INSC:1061, in a time bound manner. iii) Any other writ, order or direction which your lordships may deem fit and proper in favour of Petitioners may also be passed in the interest of justice. iv) Cost of the petition may awarded to the Petitioners." 2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy raised in the present writ petition stands duly covered [2026:RJ-JP:17344] (3 of 4) [CW-20921/2025] by the order dated 21.04.2026 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20497/2025 titled as M/s Mathuradas Sukh Lal Rathi Versus Union of India & Ors. along with other connected matters, wherein it has been held that the controversy involved stands covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh and Ors., reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304 (“Tarsem Singh-I”), further in terms of the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.1773/2021 in Civil Appeal No.7064/2019 titled as Union of India and Anr. Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors., reported in 2025:INSC:146 (“Tarsem Singh-II”) and order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Review Petition (Civil) No.2528/2025 in Miscellaneous Application No.1773/2021 in Civil Appeal No.7064/2019, titled as National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) Vs. Tarsem Singh and Ors. (“Tarsem Singh-III”), and the present writ petition be decided in same terms. 3. Paras 9 and 10 of the order passed in the case of M/s Mathuradas Sukh Lal Rathi (supra) reads under: “9.Taking note of the above, all the writ petitions deserve to be allowed and are accordingly, allowed in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh-I, Tarsem Singh-II and Tarsem Singh-III. 10.The respondent – the Competent Authority Land Acquisition (CALA) is directed to determine the differential compensation payable to the petitioners strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to [2026:RJ-JP:17344] (4 of 4) [CW-20921/2025] solatium, interest, and/or interest on solatium as applicable and to ensure payment of the same to the petitioners within a time bound manner but not later than four months from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order.” 4. In view of the above, the present writ petition stands allowed in terms of the directions issued by this Court in paras 9 and 10 in the case of M/s Mathuradas Sukh Lal Rathi (supra). 5. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIPESH CHAYAL /46