Bombay High Court
Project Director Nashik Nhai vs Ganpat Yadav Wagh on 12 November, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2025:BHC-AS:48767-DB 908-IAST-35805-25 IN WP & ANR.DOC
JYOTI
RAJESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANE
Digitally signed
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
by JYOTI RAJESH
MANE
Date: 2025.11.14
11:15:00 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.35805 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.12256 OF 2023
Project Director, ...Applicant
In the matter between:
Ganpat Yadav Wagh ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.35807 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.14361 OF 2023
Project Director, ...Applicant
In the matter between:
Anil Pralad Patil ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Kalpesh Joshi a/w. Ms. Nisha Shah i/b. Kalpesh Joshi Associates for
Petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh L. Singh i/b. M.V.Kini & CO. for Respondent/NHAI.
Mr. B.V.Samant, Addl. G.P A/W. Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP for State
in IA(ST)/35805/2025.
Ms. M.S.Bane, AGP for Respondent-State in IA(ST)/35807/2025.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 12th November 2025
P.C.
1. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court considering the settled position in
law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs.
Page 1 of 7
Mane
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:26:24 :::
908-IAST-35805-25 IN WP & ANR.DOC
Tarsem Singh and others1 disposed of a batch of Petitions vide order dated 6 th
March 2025. The present two Petitions in which the interim applications are filed
were also part of the said batch of Petitions. The relief as prayed for on behalf of the
National Highway Authority in the present application is a common relief is
required to be noted, which reads thus:
a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant liberty to deposit the
award amount with the Collector/CALA of the District in compliance
to the orders dated 06/03/2025 & 06/06/2005 pending the decision
in Review Petition before Hon'ble Apex Court.
2. Considering the nature of the relief, we are not inclined to grant such
relief as the orders passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court are clear. Learned
counsel for the Petitioner has also drawn our attention to several other orders
which are passed by this Court, subsequent to the orders in question where
considering the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India
Vs. Tarsen Singh Ors. (supra) the proceedings were disposed of. One of the recent
order passed by this Court on a batch of 14 Petitions, which in fact follows several
other orders in other batch of Petitions is required to be noted which reads thus:
1. This is a batch of petitions where similar questions of facts and law
are involved. The prayers made in the petitions are also identical which
arise out of acquisition of lands belonging to the Petitioners for the
National Highway Project under the provisions of National Highway Act,
1956. There is no dispute in regard to the notifications pertaining to the
acquisitions in question, as also the acquisition culminating into a final
award and possession of Petitioners' lands being taken over for the purpose
of national highway project.
2. The common grievance of the Petitioners is in regard to non
payment of statutory benefits of solatium and interest as would be
applicable even in respect of acquisition proceedings under the National
Highway Act by applying the provisions of Section 23(2), Section 23(1)(A)
1 (2019)9 SCC304
Page 2 of 7
Mane
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:26:24 :::
908-IAST-35805-25 IN WP & ANR.DOC
by providing 12% interest as well as interest as provided under Section 28
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The prayers in all these petitions being
similar, for convenience we refer to the prayers made in the first petition
being Writ Petition No.16370 of 2023, which read thus :
"a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/
order and/or direction directing the Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5
who are the National Highway Authorities and who are
responsible for payment of the statutory benefits of solatium and
interest, be directed by way of an appropriate writ to enforce the
statutory right of the Petitioner to get the amount of statutory
benefits/amounts as provided u/s.23(2) (solatium @ 30% p.a),
Section 23(1)(A), by providing 12% interest as well as the interest
as provided u/s.28 of the Old Land Acquisition Act, and direct
these authorities to pay these amounts forthwith;
b. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/
order declaring the actions of authorities below in not granting the
statutory right and not enforcing the statutory duty of payment of
amounts as provided u/s.23(2) (solatium @ 30% p.a) Section
23(1)(A), by providing 12% interest as well as the interest as
provided u/s.28 of the Old Land Acquisition Act, to be illegal void
and arbitrary exercise of powers and violating of the provisions of
300-A and direct them to pay these amounts forthwith and/or to
deposit the same in the Court immediately;
c. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate
writ/order quashing and setting aside the Judgment and Order
04.05.2023 passed by the Ld.Principal District Judge in Civil
Misc.Application/Arbitration Case No.51 of 2020,to the extent of
the observations about purported modification of the Award as
observed in the said Judgment;
d. This Writ Petition may be heard along with connected Writ
Petition Stamp No.17131/2023 and others, where similar/common
points are raised;
e. Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, the
Respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 be directed to forthwith deposit such
amounts by way of interim measure, by way of statutory benefits
and solatium and interest, either in this Court or may be directed
to be paid over to the Petitioner on such terms as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit;
f.Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (d) above;
g. Cost of the Petition be provided;
Page 3 of 7
Mane
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:26:24 :::
908-IAST-35805-25 IN WP & ANR.DOC
h. For such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit, just and equitable in the interest of justice".
3. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for Petitioners, states that the Respondents are
served. Mr.Singh appears for National Highway Authority of India
(`NHAI'). Learned AGP appears for the State. At the outset Mr.Joshi, learned
counsel for the Petitioners would submit that reliefs as sought for by the
Petitioners would stand covered by the judgment of Supreme Court in case of
Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others 2, in which the
Supreme Court declared that the provisions of Land Acquisition Act relating
to solatium and interest contained in Sections 23(1-A) and (2) and interest
payable in terms of Section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under
the National Highways Act (for short `NH At') and to such extent Section 3-J
of the N.H Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and
therefore declared the same to be unconstitutional. Mr.Joshi would next
submit that in pursuance of the said decision of Supreme Court several
proceedings had reached this Court. He has drawn our attention to the
orders passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s.Manidhari Realtors
Private Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others, 3 to submit that
the Division Bench following the position in law as laid down by Supreme
Court in Tarsem Singh (supra), had granted the relief to the said Petitioner
by directing payment of solatium and interest @ 9% p.a from the date of
possession. Mr.Joshi has also drawn the Court's attention to the orders dated
6th March 2025 passed on another batch of petitions passed by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Sulochanabai Pratap Suryawanshi and others Vs. The
Union of India and others4. In such proceedings the Court passed the
following orders in pursuance of the decision of the Supreme Court in
Tarsem Singh and others (supra) in regard to the grant of solatium and
interest :
"7. Following the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) and
orders disposing of the above Miscellaneous Application, we
direct the NHAI to compute and pay the petitioner's solatium
and interest in accordance with the principles in the said
matters within three months of uploading of this order.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner expresses
apprehensions that the NHAI would delay compliance. At
this stage, we have no reason to accept this submission. In any
event, the procedural delays or, the usual excuses about files
moving from one table to another or the excuse that no
provision is made for payment of this amount should not be
raised by NHAI.
2(2019)9 SCC 304
3Writ Petition No.7224 of 2022, dated 25-4-2025
4Writ Petition No.11702 of 2019 and group
Page 4 of 7
Mane
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:26:24 :::
908-IAST-35805-25 IN WP & ANR.DOC
9. The Project Director of NHAI (respondent No.4) will
be personally responsible for implementing this order. The
above relief is granted in terms of the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Tarsem Singh (supra). Based on this
decision, the NHAI should have granted such benefits to the
petitioners on its own. Therefore, it is expected that the
NHAI does not delay in compliance with these directions,
which in turn, are based on the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh (supra). Article 144 of the
Constitution provides that all authorities, civil and judicial, in
the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.
Besides, Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law
declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts
within the territory of India.
10. The rule is made absolute in the above terms in all these
matters without any cost order. All concerned must act on an
authenticated copy of this order."
4. Mr.Joshi has also placed reliance on the orders passed by this Court
on a batch of petitions decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by
order dated 9th May 2025 in Kisanlal Bairudas Jain Vs. Union of India and
others5, wherein similar reliefs were granted to the Petitioners following
earlier orders as noted by us hereinabove. Again a batch of petitions in the
case of Hiraman Namdeo Lonare and others Vs. The Union of India and
others6, were decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated
8th April 2025 wherein similar view was taken by the Court whereby the
Project Director of NHAI was directed to grant similar benefits.
5. Further Mr.Joshi has drawn our attention to the orders passed by
this Court on another batch of petitions decided by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Harish Sonwane Vs. The Union of India and
others7, wherein in similar terms the following directions were issued :
"4. We have gone through the decision in Tarsem Singh
(supra). All the counsels agree that the decision in Tarsem
Singh (supra) applies to the present petitions. Thus, we
direct that the Petitioners shall furnish a copy of the award to
the NHAI within a period of one week from the date of
uploading of this order to facilitate the NHAI to compute the
solatium and interest in accordance with law. We direct that
thereafter the NHAI shall compute the solatium and interest
in accordance with the principle of law as laid down in
5Writ Petition No.9608 of 2023 and group
6Writ Petition No.11932 of 2019 and 115 matters
7Writ Petition No.6771 of 2021 and group
Page 5 of 7
Mane
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:26:24 :::
908-IAST-35805-25 IN WP & ANR.DOC
Tarsem (supra) within a period of three months from the date
on which the Petitioners furnish a copy of the award to the
NHAI.
5. The computed amount shall be deposited by the NHAI
with the Collector of the concerned Districts within the
specified period as aforesaid. We are informed by Mr.Singh
that the National Highways Authority of India has filed a
Review Petition bearing Diary No.44096 of 2025 seeking
review of the Tarsem Singh decision before the Supreme
Court and the same is pending. In these circumstances, the
amount deposited with the Collector shall be disbursed to
the respective Petitioners depending on the outcome of the
Review Petition."
6. Mr.Pawar, learned AGP has also drawn out attention to an order
passed by the Supreme Court on Miscellaneous Application No.1773 of
2021 in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh and
others8 wherein the Union of India/NHAI had sought clarification/review
of the orders passed in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra). By judgment and
order passed on such Miscellaneous Application the Supreme Court
rejected said Miscellaneous Application in terms of the following
conclusion :
"E. CONCLUSION
25. In view of the foregoing analysis, we find no merit in the
contentions raised by the Applicant, NHAI. We reaffirm the principles
established in Tarsem Singh (supra) regarding the beneficial nature of
granting 'solatium' and 'interest' while emphasising the need to avoid
creating unjust classifications lacking intelligible differentia.
Consequently, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the present
Miscellaneous Application.
26. Leave is granted in the other connected matters, and all the
appeals are disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority
to calculate the amount of 'solatium' and 'interest' in accordance
with the directions issued in Tarsem Singh (supra). In this context,
the appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 52538/2023 is dismissed,
as the challenge therein pertains to the High Court's refusal to award
Additional Market Value as another component of the compensation,
while 'solatium' and 'interest' have already been granted."
7. Thus, the view taken by the Supreme Court in Union of India
Vs. Tarsem Singh and others (supra) has attained finality. We are
informed by Mr.Singh, learned counsel appearing for NHAI that
against the orders passed on Miscellaneous Application No.1773 of
2021, again a review petition has been filed and the same is pending.
However, admittedly that there is no stay whatsoever to the decision
of the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) and in fact it is
82025 SCC OnLine 235
Page 6 of 7
Mane
::: Uploaded on - 14/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 22:26:24 :::
908-IAST-35805-25 IN WP & ANR.DOC
applied and acted upon in several proceedings in this Court as noted
by us hereinabove.
8. It is seen that the position in law is not only well settled in the
decision of Supreme Court in regard to entitlement of Petitioners to
solatium and interest, and as followed by different benches of this
Court in several proceedings. In this view of the matter, we are of the
clear opinion that these petitions also would be required to be allowed
in terms of the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Petitioners shall furnish copy of their respective award to
the Competent Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer within a
period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order for the
purpose of computation of the amount of solatium and interest as
may be payable to the Petitioners in terms what has been held by the
Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh and
others (supra);
(ii) The Competent Authority no.2/Respondent no.4 shall, on
receipt of award, make appropriate computation of the amounts
payable to the Petitioners, and intimate the same to the Project
Director, NHAI, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of award;
(iii) The Project Director, NHAI, shall accept such computation and
deposit with the Competent Officer the amounts which become
payable to each of the Petitioners on solatium and interest. Such
amounts be deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of computation from the Competent Authority
no.2/Respondent no.4;
(iv) The Competent Authority thereafter shall proceed to disburse
the amounts to the Petitioners as would be received from the Project
Director, NHAI/acquiring body;
(v) All contentions of parties are expressly kept open;
(vi) The petitions stand disposed of in above terms. No costs.
9. At this stage Mr.Singh submitted that the order ought not to be
given effect to till the review petition is decided by the Supreme
Court. Considering the aforesaid discussion, we do not see any reason
to stay the order. The request is rejected.
4. In this view of the matter no relief can be granted in the interim
application is accordingly rejected.
5. The orders passed by this Court dated 6 th March 2025, need to be
implemented in letter and spirit.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Mane
