(1) wp2300.18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.938/2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2300/2018 (D) Dilipbhai Popatbhai Patel and Ors. .Vs. The Secretary to Government of India and Ors. AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.937/2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2303/2018 (D) Vinod Maganbhai Patel . .Vs. The Secretary to Government of India and Ors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. A. B. Nakshane, Advocate for petitioner/non applicants. Mr. A. A. Kathane, Advocate for respondent No.2/applicant. CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2026 On 23.06.2026, following order was passed: “1. By the present applications, the applicant, Original Respondent No. 2 (NHAI) is seeking modification to the order dated 03.07.2025, to the extent of computation and disbursement of solatium, interest, and other statutory benefits. 2. Argument is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 25.03.2026 in National Highways Authority of India v. Tarsem Singh and Others, 2026 INSC 291, has issued certain directions that would require modification to the order dated 03.07.2025. 3. We have gone through the order. The Division Bench [Coram : Nitin W. Sambre & Sachin S. Deshmukh, JJ.] took note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh & Ors., reported in 2019 (9) SCC 304, as also other rulings, and having found that the law is settled, directed the applicant, Original Respondent No. 2, to deposit the amount of solatium with interest accrued thereon with the Land Acquisition Authority within a period of 8 weeks. 4. Thus, on 03.07.2025, the Court issued certain directions in terms of the law then prevailing. In that view of the matter, the applicant, Original Respondent No. 2, was under an obligation to comply with the order within 8 weeks, which the applicant failed to do. On the top of it, the applicant wants to take advantage of the lapses to seek benefit of the subsequent (2) wp2300.18 judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by which the law then laid in Tarsem Singh’s case is said to have been clarified. 5. In context with above, we made a query with the applicant’s counsel as to what would have been the position had the applicant complied with the order dated 03.07.2025, in the sense, was there then any occasion to seek modification to the order under question, the answer was in the negative. 6. Thus, the applicant failed to comply with the order dated 03.07.2025, instead, the Department intends to take advantage of the lapses committed by it. The order sought to be modified is based on the law then prevailing. In the circumstances, it will not be permissible to the applicant to seek modification in the order merely because the Hon’ble Supreme Court has in subsequent judgment clarified the earlier view taken by it. 7. At this stage, the counsel for the applicant submits that the order under question has been complied with and the amount has been deposited with the Deputy Collector in December 2025, and a notice for disbursement has been issued to the original petitioners on 24.12.2025. 8. Learned counsel for the original petitioners submits that in response to the said notice, he appeared before the Deputy Collector in January 2026. Verification of documents was done, however, the compensation has been not paid by the Deputy Collector. 9. Thus, firstly, the applicant failed to comply with the order by not depositing the amount within 8 weeks, and secondly, the Deputy Collector has committed further lapses in not disbursing the amount of compensation. 10. Issue show cause notice to the applicant and the Deputy Collector as to why proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, be not initiated against them. Notice made returnable in 4 weeks. 11. In the meanwhile, we expect the applicant and the Deputy Collector to take corrective steps.” 2. In response, learned counsel for applicant as also Deputy Collector have tendered apology by filing affidavit. Counsel for (3) wp2300.18 applicant further submits that the order sought to be modified has been complied with. 3. Learned counsel appearing for non applicant-original petitioners is satisfied with this development. 4. Considering the above and since the applicant and Deputy Collector have realised the mistake, we do not intend to proceed further under the contempt jurisdiction. 5. The applications stand rejected accordingly. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Kahale Signed by: Kahale Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 15/09/2026 12:23:59