Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sunil Sancheti vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:17288) on 3 April, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:17288]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4837/2025

Sunil Sancheti S/o Prakash Sancheti, Aged About 56 Years,
Resident Of A-334, Navkar, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.).
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.          Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road,
            Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2.          The Chairman, National Highways Authority Of India, G-5
            And 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110 075.
3.          The Prescribed Authority (Land Acquisition) And Sub
            Divisional Officer, Rohet, Pali, District Pali, Rajasthan.
4.          The Project Director And Executive Engineer, Public Works
            Department, National Highway Block, Pali (Raj.).
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Pradeep Swami.
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Aishwarya Anand.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

03/04/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following

reliefs:-

"A. The respondent land acquisition officer, sub divisional officer, Rohet may be directed to determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894, with interest till date on excess amount, within a specific time.

B. The respondents may kindly be directed to re- determine the award dated 31.07.2014 (Annexure-1) in so far as it declines award of solatium and interest in terms of the provisions of section 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

C. The respondents may be directed to comply with the Guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

[2025:RJ-JD:17288] (2 of 6) [CW-4837/2025]

D. The respondents may kindly be directed to issue supplementary award to this effect within a stipulated time.

E. The National Highway Authority of India must be directed to deposit the amount payable in terms of the supplementary award, in interest bearing fixed deposit account(s) in any nationalized bank which shall be disbursed to the petitioner."

3. Briefly noted the facts in the writ petition are that by an

award dated 31.07.2014, the petitioner's land was acquired by the

Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub Divisional officer, Rohet, District

Pali while exercising powers under the Act of 1956. The petitioner

had accepted the award and the possession of the land was

handed-over to the respondents. At the time of passing of the

award, Section 3-J of the National Highways Act, 1956 was in

vogue and, therefore, the petitioner was not granted solatium and

interest. Subsequently, Section 3-J of the Act of 1956 was

declared ultra-vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Union of India & Anr. V/s. Tarsem Singh & Ors., reported in

AIR 2019 SC 4689. After passing of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this

Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5299/2018 (Jeta Ram

V/s Union of India & Ors.) which was disposed of by this Court

on 09.11.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that

there was no occasion for the petitioner to pray for the

compensation towards solatium and interest on the date on which

the award was passed as Section 3-J of the Act of 1956 was in

vogue, which does not entitle the petitioner for grant of solatium

and interest.

[2025:RJ-JD:17288] (3 of 6) [CW-4837/2025]

5. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the

authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Tarsem Singh (supra), the petitioner is now entitled to

get solatium and interest as compensation for acquisition of his

land acquired by the respondents.

6. Learned counsel also submits that technically, the application

should have been filed before the Land Acquisition Officer itself

but the writ petition was filed before this Court which was

disposed of vide order dated 09.11.2022 with a direction to

approach the Arbitrator by way of filing an appropriate application.

Since the dispute with respect to the solatium and interest was

not raised by the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Officer,

therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the writ

petition may be allowed and the petitioner may be given liberty to

approach the concerned Land Acquisition Officer by way of filing

an appropriate application for grant of solatium and interest in the

light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Tarsem Singh (supra) and the Land Acquisition Officer may be

directed to decide the same expeditiously.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently

opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner and submits that the award was passed way-back in the

year 2014 and the petitioner had waived his right to challenge the

same as he had accepted the award passed by the Land

Acquisition Officer. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has

approached this Court after a delay of more than ten years and,

therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief on

[2025:RJ-JD:17288] (4 of 6) [CW-4837/2025]

the ground of delay and latches alone. He, therefore, prays that

the writ petition may be dismissed.

8. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the relevant record of the case.

9. The factual details mentioned in the preceding paras clearly

show that the land of the petitioner was acquired by the

respondents-National Highways Authority of India and the award

was passed as per the provisions of the Act of 1956 by the Land

Acquisition Officer on 31.07.2014. On the date of passing of the

award, Section 3-J of the Act of 1956 was in vogue and, therefore,

the petitioner was not entitled for grant of solatium and interest.

However, subsequently the validity of Section 3-J of the Act of

1956 was declared ultra-vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) observing as under :-

"41. There is no doubt that the learned Solicitor General, in the aforesaid two orders, has conceded the issue raised in these cases. This assumes importance in view of the plea of Shri Divan that the impugned judgments should be set aside on the ground that when the arbitral awards did not provide for solatium or interest, no Section 34 petition having been filed by the landowners on this score, the Division Bench judgments that are impugned before us ought not to have allowed solatium and/or interest. Ordinarily, we would have acceded to this plea, but given the fact that the Government itself is of the view that solatium and interest should be granted even in cases that arise between 1997 and 2015, in the interest of justice we decline to interfere with such orders, given our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We therefore declare that the provisions of the Land acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. Consequently, the provision of Section 3J is,

[2025:RJ-JD:17288] (5 of 6) [CW-4837/2025]

to this extent, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 9599/2019 is dismissed."

A bare perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) shows that the

provisions of Section 3-J of the Act of 1956 were declared ultra-

vires and the land owners had been granted benefit of grant of

solatium and interest on account of the acquisition of their lands

by the National Highways Authority of India.

10. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the Misc.

Application filed by the National Highway Authority of India for

clarification of the order dated 19.09.2019 passed in the case of

Union of India & Anr. V/s Tarsem Singh & Ors., reported in AIR

2019 SC 4689 was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

affirming the order passed in Tarsem Singh (supra) in the

following terms :-

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.

[2025:RJ-JD:17288] (6 of 6) [CW-4837/2025]

27. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. Ordered accordingly.

11. In these circumstances, this Court is firmly of the view that

the petitioner is duly entitled for grant of solatium and interest for

acquisition of his land by the respondents. However, since the

dispute has not been raised before the Land Acquisition Officer,

therefore, it will be in the interest of justice that the petitioner

may be given liberty to approach the Land Acquisition Officer for

grant of solatium and interest as per law in the light of the law

laid-down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem

Singh (supra).

12. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is