Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dharamdas And Sons Thr Decd. Prataprao ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 November, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34649
1 WP-44634-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 27th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 44634 of 2025
DHARAMDAS AND SONS THR DECD. PRATAPRAO THR LR
DAMODAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prashant Sharma - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Anand Soni, AAG for respondent/State.
Shri Teyjas Sharma, counsel for respondent NO.3.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India being aggrieved by inaction on the part of respondents in not allowing
the statutory benefits to the petitioner while computing compensation,
additional compensation, solatium and interest as per guidelines issued by
the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem
Singh and others, (2019) 9 SCC 304.
2. Facts of the case are that for the purpose of expansion/four laning of
National Highway No.3 Shivpuri-Dewas Division, private lands were
acquired of village Bilawali, which includes petitioner's private land bearing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34649
2 WP-44634-2025
survey No. 408 & 409/2 admeasuring 0.107 and 0.107 Hectares. An award
was passed under section 3(G)(1) and (2) of National Highways Act on
7.2.2013 by the competent authority. Being aggrieved by the said award, the
petitioner preferred an application under section 3(G)(5) of the National
Highways Act, 1956 before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator partly allowed the
application filed by the petitioner but while deciding the application under
section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, failed to take into account and
consider the additional interest of 12% per annum and 30% solatium amount
while computing the award amount as mentioned in section 23(A-1) and
23(2) of Land Acquisition Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, National
Highway Authority of India had preferred an application under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The counter claim was also filed. The
Arbitrator dismissed the said application on the ground of delay. The said
order was challenged under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act and the same was also dismissed by the II District Judge, Dewas.
3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is entitled
for additional compensation under Section 23(1-A), Solatium under Section
23(2) and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred as "Act, 1894") in view of the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another v/s Tarsem
Singh and others [(2019) 9 Supreme Court Cases 304].
4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v/s Tarsem
Singh (AIRONLINE 2025 SC 94) in paragraph Nos. 25 & 26 has held as
under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:34649
3 WP-44634-2025
"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
emphasizing 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."
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent after going through
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India v/s
Tarsem Singh (AIRONLINE 2025 SC 94) is not disputing the aforesaid facts.
6. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. The claims i.e.
additional compensation under Section 23(1-A), Solatium under Section
23(2) and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are
allowed and the same be paid to the petitioner within a period of six weeks
from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE JUDGE
MK
