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.
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:13:29 PM)
[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.
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:13:29 PM)
[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
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:13:29 PM)
[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,(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:13:29 PM)
[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.
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:13:29 PM)
[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
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the
concerned Land Acquisition Officer by way of filing an appropriate
application for grant of solatium and interest and the Land
Acquisition Officer is directed to decide the said application
expeditiously, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all
the concerned parties, by passing a reasoned and speaking order
preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of such application.
13. It is made clear that the respondents will be at liberty to
raise all the grounds available to them including the ground of
delay in filing such application.
14. The stay application as well as other pending misc.
applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
108-Shahenshah/-
(Downloaded on 05/04/2025 at 05:13:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)