Bombay High Court
Shri. Ramdas Budha Gohire vs The Union Of India And Ors on 9 May, 2025
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2025:BHC-AS:21612-DB
903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.DOCX
Sayyed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(903) WRIT PETITION NO.9608 OF 2023
Kisanlal Bairudas Jain ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and ors. ... Respondents
AND
(904) WRIT PETITION NO.11052 OF 2024
Ratanlal Ramchandra Jain ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7627 OF 2024
Ramnath Rajaram Niphade ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15636 OF 2024
Ramrao Dattatray More ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15115 OF 2024
Chitra Ramesh Khode ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and ors. ... Respondents
Page 1 of 14
903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.DOCX
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15834 OF 2024
Dattatraya Karbhari Niphade ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7626 OF 2024
Sudhakar Baburao Kandekar ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.11876 OF 2024
Shivram Vithoba Pawar ... Petitioner
Versus
The Competent Authority National ... Respondents
Highway Authority of India and Anr.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15649 OF 2024
Khanderao Waman Vatpade ... Petitioner
Versus
Competent Authority Land Acquisition ... Respondents
No.2 and Anr.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.11573 OF 2024
Dineshbhai Dayabhai Bhalodia ... Petitioner
Versus
Competent Authority National Highway ... Respondents
Authority of India and Anr.
Page 2 of 14
903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.DOCX
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10696 OF 2024
Ramdas Pundalik Vidhate ... Petitioner
Versus
Competent Authority National Highway ... Respondents
Authority of India and Anr.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15653 OF 2024
Navnath Murlidhar Vatpade ... Petitioner
Versus
Competent Authority Land Acquisition ... Respondents
No.2, Nashik and Anr.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7982 OF 2024
Raman Damu Jore ... Petitioner
Versus
Government of India and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15116 OF 2024
Bajirao Raghunath Gaikwad ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.11051 OF 2024
Ashok Mahadu Pawar and Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9585 OF 2024
Page 3 of 14
903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.DOCX
Genu Mahadu Jadhav ... Petitioner
Versus
Government of India and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6876 OF 2024
Mayur Bhausaheb Pawar ... Petitioner
Versus
The Competent Authority and Special ... Respondents
Land Acquisition Office No.2, Nashik
and Anr.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9542 OF 2024
Minakshi Prakash Deshmukh ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6971 OF 2024
Sunil Babulal Burad ... Petitioner
Versus
The Government of India and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5842 OF 2024
Minakshi Prakash Deshmukh ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15967 OF 2024
Page 4 of 14
903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.DOCX
Rajaram Nathu Bonde ... Petitioner
Versus
Government of India and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6036 OF 2024
Grafite India Ltd. ... Petitioner
Versus
Government of India and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.15704 OF 2024
Ramdas Keru Malunjkar ... Petitioner
Versus
Government of India and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11772 OF 2024
Ananda Revji Sanap ... Petitioner
Versus
Competent Authority and Special Land ... Respondents
Acquisition Officer and Ors.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11888 OF 2024
Ramdas Budha Gohire ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 16482 OF 2023
Jagannath Vishnu Pagar ... Petitioner
Page 5 of 14
903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.DOCX
Versus
Government of India and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.33968 OF 2023
Ramdas Murlidhar Gunjal ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.33972 OF 2023
Sitabai Nivrutti Satbhai ... Petitioner
Versus
Government of India and Ors. ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Mr. P. N. Joshi a/w Mr. Nikhil M. Pujari, Mr. Pratik Rahade for the
Petitioner in all petitions.
Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent-State in
WP/9608/2023
Mr. Sambahji Kharatmol i/b. Mr. Suhas P. Urgunde, for Respondent
No.5 in WP/9608/2023.
Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent-State in WP/9608/23
and WP Nos.11052, 7627, 15636, 15115, 15834 of 2024.
Ms. S. R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent-State in WP Nos.7676,
11876, 15649, 11573, 10696 of 2024.
Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for Respondent-State in WP Nos.15653,
7982, 15116, 11051, 9585 of 2024
Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for Respondent-State in WP Nos.6876, 9542,
6971, 5842, 15967 of 2024 and WPST/33972/2023
Ms. V. R. Raje, AGP for Respondent-State in WP Nos.6036, 15704,
11772, 11888 of 2024, 16482/2023 and WPST/33968/2023.
______________________________________________________
CORAM : M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED : 9 May 2025
Page 6 of 14
903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.DOCX
ORAL JUDGMENT:- (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. We issue Rule in each of these petitions. The Rule is made
returnable forthwith, with the consent of the learned counsel for
the parties.
3. Yesterday, we made it clear that these matters would be
taken up for final disposal today because there was never any
dispute that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Union of India vs Tarsem Singh and Ors.1 was
applicable in these matters, entitling all the Petitioners to the
statutory benefits of interest and solatium on par with the
provisions of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
4. Mr. Sambhaji Kharatmol, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the National Highway Authority of India in some of these
matters, has tendered an affidavit-in-reply. He has contended that
these Petitions should not be entertained because all the
Petitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"). Further,
the affidavit states that if the Petitioners are affected by non-
payment of solatium and interest in terms of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (Supra),
'petitioner should promptly file claims with the Competent
Authority, including all necessary documentation and prove that,
(2019) 9 SCC 304
903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.DOCX
he is entitled for solatium and interest, but the Petitioner without
availing the remedy directly approached this Hon'ble Court by way
of writ petition, which is against the settled position of law, hence,
the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner deserves to be dismissed
holding that the same is not maintainable.'
5. In all these matters, the Petitioners were aggrieved with the
compensation amount determined and, therefore, applied for the
matter to be resolved through Arbitration as provided under
Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The Arbitrator
so appointed made an award, enhancing the compensation.
However, the benefit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Tarsem Singh (supra) was not granted.
6. Therefore, the Petitioners preferred petitions under Section
34 of the Arbitration Act. A common judgment and order dated 4
May 2023 disposed of these. In this judgment and order, the
Principal District Judge, Nashik, [PDJ], in fact agreed with the
Petitioner's contention that they were entitled to solatium and
interest in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Tarsem Singh (supra). This judgment and order records that even
the National Highway Authority expressed willingness to pay the
solatium component from the decision date in Tarsem Singh
(supra). However, the PDJ, being bound by the decision of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rishabhkumar Vs
Secretary to Government of India2, felt disabled to modify the
Arbitrator's award and grant the Petitioners relief in terms of the
2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4561
903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.DOCX
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Tarsem Singh
(supra).
7. The above is evident from paragraphs 25 to 26 of the PDJ's
order disposing of the Petitioner's Petitions under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are transcribed below for
the convenience of reference: -
"25. I do agree with the submissions made by learned Advocate
Mr. S.N.Baste appearing for the applicants that applicants are
entitled for solatium and interest on solatium. So also National
Highways Authority expressed willingness to pay the solatium
components from the date of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court
passed in case of Tarsem Singh.
26. However, in the light of legal principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Rishabhkumar s/o. Babulal
Jejani (Supra), grant of statutory amount and components are
not permissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act."
8. Incidentally, Rishabhkumar (supra) takes the view that
whatever the Principal District Judge in a Petition under Section
34 of the Arbitration Act could not have done, the same cannot be
done by the Appeal court under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
In such circumstances, we cannot appreciate the NHAI's stance of
raising the plea that these petitions should not be entertained
because the Petitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 37
of the Arbitration Act.
9. It is well settled that the rule of exhaustion of alternate
remedies is a self-imposed restriction on exercising extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Before
903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.DOCX
applying this Rule, the court must see whether the alternate
remedy is indeed efficacious. There is no point in relegating the
Petitioners to the remedy under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act,
when the relief they claim cannot be granted under such
proceedings.
10. If we were to relegate the Petitioners to the remedy of
Section 37, the Appeal Court, being bound by the decision in
Rishabhkumar (supra), would have no option but to dismiss such
appeals by declining to modify the arbitral award. This would be
futile. Such a remedy can hardly be called an efficacious one.
Accordingly, we reject the unfortunate contention that these
Petitions should not be entertained because the Petitioners have
an alternative remedy under Section 37 of the said Act.
11. In the case of M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd Vs The Excise and
Taxation officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Ors.3,Civil Appeal
no.5393 of 2010 decided on 1 February 2023, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court interfered with the dismissal of the writ petition by
the High Court because the petitioner had not availed the
alternate remedy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that such
dismissal was improper because the High Court failed to examine
whether an exceptional case has been made out. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court also noted that mere availability of an alternative
remedy of appeal or revision would not oust the jurisdiction of the
High Court and render a writ petition 'not maintainable'. Where
the controversy is purely legal one and it does not involve
2023 (384) ELT 8 (SC)
903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.DOCX
disputed questions of fact but only involves questions of law, then
it should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing the
writ petition on the ground of an alternative remedy being
available.
12. There is no serious dispute regarding the facts or applicable
law in these matters. The PDJ has held that the Petitioners are
entitled to the benefits in terms of Tarsem Singh (Supra). The
NHAI offered such benefits from the date of the judgment. The so-
called alternative remedy is ineffective. There is no benefit in
relegating the Petitioners to avail themselves of such an
alternative remedy, thus depriving them of the benefits to which
they are entitled.
13. In all these matters, as noted earlier, there is no dispute
about the Petitioners being entitled to the benefits of the solatium
and interest under the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Tarsem Singh (Supra). Even the counsel for NHAI who appeared
before the Principal District Judge, fairly submitted that the NHAI
was willing to pay solatium component, though, from the date of
the decision in the case of Tarsem Singh (Supra). After all this, to
raise the objection based on alternate remedy in this Court,
appears to be extremely unfortunate and unfair on the part of the
NHAI. The NHAI cannot take diversion stances. Ultimately, these
are statutory benefits. The entitlement is never seriously disputed.
Even the Principal District Judge, in terms held that the Petitioners
were entitled to such benefits given the decision in Tarsem Singh
(Supra).
903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.DOCX
14. These are not adversarial proceedings, and we are happy to
note that NHAI did not treat them as adversarial proceedings at
least before the District Court. Even in this Court, Mr. Singh, who
appeared for NHAI in some of the matters, did not raise an
objection based on an alternate remedy. The objection was only
raised by Mr. Sambhaji Kharatmol, no doubt, on the instructions of
his senior, who had appeared yesterday and raised the same
objection.
15. Though no contention was pressed before us that the
benefits of Tarsem Singh (Supra) should be given only from the
date on which the Hon'ble Supreme Court made such a decision,
still, we must add that such a plea was attempted to be raised
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing the Miscellaneous
Application. Such a Miscellaneous Application was rejected on 4
February 2025. We have taken cognisance of the Miscellaneous
Application filed in Tarsem Singh (Supra) and the orders made
thereon in our order dated 8 April 2025, disposing of Writ Petition
No.11932 of 2019 and connected matters.
16. Even in Rishabhkumar (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench
agreed that the appellants were entitled to the benefits in terms of
Tarsem Singh (supra). However, the Co-ordinate Bench held that
if the Arbitrator failed to grant such benefits in the arbitral award,
the Section 34 Court was not entitled to modify and grant such
monetary benefits. The Co-ordinate Bench also held that whatever
the Section 34 Court could not do, even the appeal Court under
Section 37 could not do. Accordingly, orders made by the Section
903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.DOCX
34 Court granting such statutory benefits were interfered. The
Coordinate Bench clarified that such interference was due to the
restricted powers possessed by the Section 34 and Section 37
Courts.
17. In fact, in paragraphs 62 and 66, the Co-ordinate Bench
held that though such reliefs could not have been granted by
modifying the awards, the landowners would have to take such
steps as are permissible in law to seek additional reliefs beyond
what may have been granted in the award. Since the petitioners
only claim statutory reliefs in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra), we see
nothing wrong in their invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
18. We also rely upon our reasoning in the order dated 8 April
2025, disposing of the Writ Petition No.11932 of 2019 and
connected matters. In this order, the petitioners had directly
petitioned this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The NHAI's counsel, Mr. Rakesh Singh, very fairly, accepted
that the matter was covered by the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra). Even
otherwise, we were satisfied that the matter was covered.
Accordingly, directions were issued to grant the petitioners the
statutory benefits in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra).
19. In our order dated 8 April 2025, we referred to Article
141 of the Constitution, which provides that the law declared by
903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.DOCX
the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the
territory of India. We also referred to Article 144 of the
Constitution, which provides that all authorities, civil and judicial,
in the territory of India shall act to the aid of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
20. Accordingly, for all the above reasons, we overrule the
objection to the maintainability of these petitions on grounds of
alternate remedy and allow all these petitions by directing the
NHAI to pay to the Petitioners the statutory benefits of solatium
and interest in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Tarsem Singh (supra) within four months from today without
requiring the Petitioners to institute any contempt petitions for
non-compliance.
21. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any
cost order.
22. All concerned must act on the authenticated copy of this
order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali
Date: 09/05/2025 18:39:42
