[2026:RJ-JP:21548] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14/2026 1. Umesh Kumar S/o Shri Mahesh Chand, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Shiv Colony, Mandawar, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa, Rajasthan. 2. Vinay Kumar S/o Shri Mahesh Chand, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 683, Surya Nagar, Gopal Pura Bypass, Narayan Niwas, Near Rajasthan Nursing Home, Jaipur Rajasthan. ----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 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mahwa, District Dausa. 3. National Highways Authority Of India, Through Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Dausa, A-2, Ganga Vihar Colony, Behind Hotel Rawat Palace, Dausa, District Dausa. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Karnani, Advocate & Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Advocate with Mr. Amar Singh, Advocate Mr. Nachiketa Pareek, Advocate through VC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 21/05/2026 The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners with the following prayer :- "i) By issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to compute and pay the petitioner, 30% solatium and 12% additional benefits and other statutory benefits alongwith interest for acquired land bearing Khasra No.861 admeasuring 565 sq. mt. 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 Another Vs. [2026:RJ-JP:21548] (2 of 3) [CW-14/2026] Tarsem Singh & Others, 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 petitioner for determine and disburse 30% solatium and 12% additional benefits and other statutory benefits alongwith interest for the acquired land of the petitioner 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 Lordship may deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner may also be passed in the interest of justice. iv) Cost of the petition may awarded to the petitioner." Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the controversy raised in the present writ petition is identical and has already been covered by the order dt.21.04.2026 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20497/2025 titled as M/s Mathuradas SukhLal Rathi Versus Union of India & Ors., along with other connected matters. In that case, it was held that the issue involved is 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, reference is made to 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 in2025:INSC:146 (“Tarsem Singh-II”), as well as reliance has been placed on the order dt.25.03.2026 passed 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”). Therefore, it is submitted that the present writ petition be decided on the same terms. 3. Paragraphs 9 & 10 of the order passed by this Court in the case of M/s Mathuradas Sukh Lal Rathi (supra) read 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 [2026:RJ-JP:21548] (3 of 3) [CW-14/2026] with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to 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.” In view of the above, the present writ petition stands allowed in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Paras 9 & 10 in the case of M/s Mathuradas Sukh Lal Rathi (supra). Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J ASHOK