Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jeta Ram vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:718) on 7 January, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:718]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12356/2024

Jeta Ram S/o Ramchandra Vishnoi, Aged About 66 Years,
Resident Of Guda Vishnoiyan, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Road,
         Transport And Highway, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2.       The Chief Engineer (National Highway), Public Works
         Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
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.).
5.       The District Collector, Pali, District Pali, (Raj.).
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Pradeep Swami
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Aishwarya Anand with
                                   Mr. Tushar Jain for
                                   Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG
                                   Mr. Pukhraj Seervi



         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

07/01/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 27.05.2024 passed by the District Collector(Arbitrator), Pali

under Section 3(G)(v) National Highways Authority of India Act,

1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1956'), whereby, the

application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

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

[2025:RJ-JD:718] (2 of 6) [CW-12356/2024]

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. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court

on 09.11.2022, the petitioner preferred an application before the

Arbitrator who was District Collector, Pali for grant of solatium and

interest for his land which was acquired by the respondents.

4. Learned District Collector (Arbitrator), Pali vide order dated

27.05.2024, rejected the application preferred by the petitioner on

the ground that since the petitioner had accepted the award

passed by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Officer,

Rohet, District Pali and had handed-over the possession of the

acquired land without raising any dispute, thus, no arbitrable

dispute exists between the parties. As such, the application for

arbitration in the matter for grant of solatium and interest is not

maintainable and the same has been therefore rejected. Being

aggrieved of the order dated 27.05.2024, the present writ petition

has been filed.

[2025:RJ-JD:718] (3 of 6) [CW-12356/2024]

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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

[2025:RJ-JD:718] (4 of 6) [CW-12356/2024]

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 four years and,

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

the ground of delay and latches alone.

9. Learned counsel also submits that there is no infirmity in the

order passed by the District Collector(Arbitrator), Pali on

27.05.2024 as no arbitrable dispute existed between the parties.

He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be dismissed.

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

through the relevant record of the case.

11. 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

[2025:RJ-JD:718] (5 of 6) [CW-12356/2024]

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, 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.

12. 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