WP(MD)/18735/2026 of A.Saroja Vs The Special District Revenue on 16 October 2026

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking payment of Solatium, interest on the award amount and interest on Solatium.

2. The petitioner is the owner of the property measuring to an extent of 1 acre 46 cents comprised in S.No.735/4, situated at Seelappadi Village, Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul District and the patta also stands in her name vide Patta No.1072. The petitioner claims right over the said property under sale deed dated 17.09.1984. A portion of the above said land namely 777 square meters was acquired for the purpose of expansion of National Highway No.45 and preliminary notification under Section 3 A(1) of National Highways Act was published on 13.09.2007. Subsequently, an award was passed by the 1st respondent on 15.07.2009 fixing the compensation amount payable to the petitioner at Rs.4,13,999/-. The said amount has not been paid to the petitioner or deposited in the Court till the filing of the writ petition. Further another portion of the petitioner’s land in the above mentioned survey number with an extent of 267 sq.mts was again acquired for the very same purpose, as per the second notification published under Section 3A (1) of National Highways Act on 08.08.2008. For the second piece of land notified for acquisition, another award was passed by the 1st respondent on 01.12.2009 fixing the compensation amount payable to the petitioner at Rs.1,42,262/-. The said amount was also not paid or deposited in the Court till the filing of the writ petition.

3. The petitioner submitted a representation before the 1st respondent seeking payment of Solatium, interest and interest on Solatium in terms of the order passed by the Apex Court in Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304 (herein after referred to as Tarsem case I) and also the decision of this Court in Etti Gounder and others Vs. District Collector reported in 2021 (6) CTC 618. The said representation has not been considered by the 1st respondent and hence the petitioner was constrained to move a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.25515 of 2024. The said writ petition was disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.08.2024 and pass orders. In spite of the direction, the 1st respondent failed to consider the representation and hence, contempt notice was issued and thereafter, the representation was considered and impugned order was passed by the 1st respondent. In the impugned order, the 1st respondent directed payment of total compensation amount as fixed in the above mentioned two awards. However, the 1st respondent has not considered the request of the petitioner for payment of Solatium, interest and interest on Solatium in terms of the above mentioned case laws. However, the 1st respondent in the impugned order observed that if the petitioner seeks any enhanced compensation amount she can move the District Collector in terms of Section 3G (5) of National Highways Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has come before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by taking this Court through various decisions cited infra would submit that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the award amount from the date of taking possession to the date of actual payment/ deposit, Solatium interest and interest on Solatium in terms of the decisions relied on by him and the said claim made by the petitioner has not been properly considered by the 1st respondent and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside to that extent. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:

(i) Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304, (hereinafter referred to as Tarsem case I)

(ii) Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others reported in AIR 2025 SCC 1460 (hereinafter referred to as Tarsem case II)

(iii) National Highways Authority of India Vs. Tarsem Singh and others reported in 2026 INSC 291 (hereinafter referred to as Tarsem case III)

(iv) Etti Gounder and others Vs. District Collector and others reported in 2021 (6) CTC 618

(v) Baba John and others Vs. The Competent Authority, the Special District Revenue Officer (LA) Vellore and two others in W.A.Nos.1064 and 1170 of 2026,

(vi) Abbas T.Vagh and others Vs. The Competent Authority and Special Revenue Officer (LA ), Kancheepuram and others reported in 2014

(1) CWC 1.

5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that after passing of award in the year 2009, the petitioner was issued with notice to produce title documents for the purpose of verifying his right over the acquired properties and receiving the compensation amount. During the course of verification, a third party objection dated 22.06.2010 was received and pendency of civil suit was also referred to in that objection. In the light of the dispute regarding title to the property, the official respondents could not pay the amount to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the civil suit was ultimately decided only on 13.03.2023 and the decree/connected documents was registered only on 27.06.2024. In such circumstances, the official respondent cannot be blamed for alleged delay in payment of the compensation amount.

6. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that the award passed by the competent authority was not at all questioned by the petitioner in the manner known to law by filing any arbitration claim before the District Collector. In such circumstances, the request of the petitioner for payment of Solatium, interest and interest on Solatium cannot be considered.

7. The learned Special Government Pleader also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M.Sapabathi Vs. The District Collector cum Arbitrator, Dindigul District, Dindigul and others reported in 2026 MHC 3258 for the proposition that the petitioner slept over the right for several years and therefore belated claim for payment of Solatium, interest etc., cannot be considered at this stage.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/National Highways Authority would submit that there is no provision in the National Highways Act enabling payment of interest on the award amount for the belated payment as in the case of Section 34 of Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the petitioner's claim for interest is not sustainable. It is further submitted that the petitioner's claim for Solatium, etc., was not alive on the relevant cut-off date (28.03.2008) and hence the petitioner is not entitled to claim Solatium, interest on Solatium etc.

9. Before the enactment of National Highways Laws ( amendment Act 1997) all the acquisition for the purpose of National Highways were made under the old land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the year 1997, National Highways Acquisition Act was amended, special provisions relating to acquisition of land for formation of National Highways, were incorporated in the body of National Highways Act by introducing Section 3A to 3J. Therefore, all the acquisition for the purpose of formation of National Highways were made under the old Land Acquisition Act till 1997 and the affected land owners were paid compensation including Solatium, interest and interest on Solatium as per the provisions of old Land Acquisition Act. However, there is no provision for payment for Solatium and interest etc., in the National Highways Act and hence there was a doubt about payment of Solatium and interest etc., whenever acquisition is made under the amended provisions of National Highways Act from the year 1997. Subsequently, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as Right to Fair Compensation Act) was passed and it has been made applicable to the acquisition under National Highways Act for the purpose of determination of compensation from 01.01.2015. Therefore, whenever acquisition is made from and after 01.01.2015 under the provisions of National Highways Act, Solatium and interest are payable as per the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation Act. Whether the land owners affected by the acquisition from 1997 to 31.12.2014 are entitled to Solatium, interest etc., came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Tarsem Singh case I cited supra wherein the Apex Court declared as follows:

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, to this extent, violative of Article 14

of the Constitution of India and,

therefore, declared to be unconstitutional. Accordingly, Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9599/2019 is dismissed. [Emphasis supplied by this Court]

10. Subsequently, in National Highways Authority of India and another Vs. Tehal Singh and others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 3175. The Apex Court deleted “ (1A) and ” from the above mentioned declaration. Therefore, in the above mentioned extract the deleted portion has been highlighted with double underline.

11. In Tarsem Singh Case II, the Apex Court rejected the arguments that Tarsem Singh Case I should operate prospectively and held that the payment of Solatium and interest are integral part of constitutional right under Article 300 A of Constitution of India. Ultimately, following direction was issued in the said case. “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).”

12. In Tarsem Singh case III, the Apex Court considered the question of delay in making claims for Solatium, interest and interest on Solatium in respect of the awards passed under National Highways Act in the interregnum period from 1997 to 01.01.2015. In the said case, the Apex Court issued the following directions:

(i) All landowners whose claims re: the quantum and/or components of compensation for their lands acquired under the NH Act were alive on or after 28.03.2008, i.e., they were pending before one of the prescribed fora, shall be entitled to seek addition of ‘interest’, ‘solatium’, and ‘interest on the solatium’ to their compensation claim;

(ii) In the cases where compensation claims are alive on the aforesaid date, but the landowner has claimed ‘interest’, ‘solatium’, and ‘interest on solatium’ after 28.03.2008, no interest on both components shall be payable for the period of delay. Such landowner shall be entitled to ‘interest’ and ‘interest on solatium’ only from the date on which such claims were raised; and

(iii) If the claims of the landowners stood concluded prior to 28.03.2008, with no further appeal, Writ Petition, Special Leave Petition, etc., then such landowners are not entitled to seek reopening, review, or modification of the said decision for the purpose of claiming ‘solatium’ or ‘interest’.

13. A combined reading of Tarsem Singh cases I, II and III would make it clear that in all cases where the claim of the land owners regarding the quantum and/or components of the compensations for the lands acquired under National Highways Act, were alive on or after 28.03.2008, due to pendency of their claim in anyone of the prescribed fora, they are entitled to seek addition of interest, Solatium and interest on Solatium to their compensation claim.

14. In cases, where such claim has been made by the land owners belatedly no interest shall be payable for the period of delay, such owners shall be entitled to interest and interest on Solatium only from the date on which such claims are raised. In the case on hand, admittedly, two awards by the competent authority have been passed only subsequent to the cut off date (28.03.2008). The first award was passed on 15.07.2009 and the second award was passed on 01.12.2009. Therefore, on the relevant cut off date, the entitlement of the land owners for compensation to the property acquired was under consideration of competent authority. Hence, in terms of directions issued in Tarsem case III that claim was very much alive on the cut off date. Though the awards were passed as early as on 15.07.2009 and 01.12.2009 without including the components like interest, Solatium and interest on Solatium, the petitioner has not raised her little finger for several years. They could have filed claim petition before the Arbitrator under Section 3 G (5) of National Highways Act or could have atleast sought for inclusion of those components by filing a representation before the competent authority. However, she waited for sometime and made the claim only after conclusion of the civil dispute. The first representation of the petitioner seeking Solatium, interest and interest on Solatium was made only on 23.04.2024. Hence, in terms of direction No.II issued in Tarsem case III, the petitioner are not entitled to claim interest and interest on Solatium for the delay period i.e., up to 22.08.2024. As per the direction issued under Tarsem case III, the petitioner are entitled to claim interest and interest on Solatium only from the date of her representation dated 23.08.2024.

15. It is submitted that the petitioner failed to challenge the award by filing arbitration under Section 3 G (5) of National Highways Act and hence, they are not entitled to claim Solatium interest etc., at this stage. This issue has been considered by this Court in Etti Gounder case cited supra and the relevant observation reads as follows: To sum up and conclude this point, inasmuch as the issue on the payment of solatium and interest falls outside the jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under the National Highways Act to decide, and since they are statutory constants which becomes payable automatically if the condition for their application are available, and given the fact the very obligation to pay has arisen only after the judgment in Tarsem Singh case, no circumstance exists for invoking Sec.34 of the A & C Act. The petitioner can therefore, have the right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

16. The said view expressed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the First Bench of this Court in Baba John and others Vs. the Competent Authority, The Special District Revenue Officer (LA), Vellore and others in W.A.Nos.1064 and 1170 of 2026. Therefore, I have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that notwithstanding failure of the petitioner to file petition seeking arbitration under Section 3 G (5) of National Highways Act, the component representing interest, Solatium and interest on Solatium being statutory, based on the representation submitted by the petitioner, the competent authority is bound to consider the same. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the competent authority negativing the request of the petitioner seeking payment of Solatium, interest and interest on Solatium is very well maintainable. The non filing of petition under Section 3 G (5) of National Highways Act, seeking arbitration will not come in the way of the petitioner seeking the relief before this Court.

17. As far as the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that there is no provision in the National Highways Act for payment of interest on the compensation amount is concerned, this Court feels non payment of interest will diminish the value of compensation paid with unreasonable delay. In Kolkata Municipal Corporation and another Vs. Bimal Kumar Shah and others reported in (2024) 10 SCC 533, the Apex Court held that the land owners are entitled to payment of fair compensation. As per the scheme of Act, the compensation amount are determined with reference to the date of preliminary notification. If there is unreasonable delay on the part of the authorities in making payment, due to impact of inflation, the compensation amount calculated based on the land value that existed at the time of preliminary notification will get diminished. A fair compensation arrived at based on the land value on the date of preliminary notification, if paid at a distant point of time without any reasonable cause, will result in denial of fair compensation. In fact in Padmavathi Vs. National Highways Authority of India and others reported in Manu/TN/7946/2007and Abbas T.Vagh and others Vs. The Competent Authority and others reported in 2014 (1) CWC 1, this Court held that the land owners were entitled to interest on delayed payment. In Manav Bhanot Vs. National Highway Authority of India reported in 2026 INSC 973, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the claim of the land owner seeking payment of Solatium, interest and interest on Solatium as provided under old Land Acquisition Act 1894 shall be considered in respect of acquisitions made under National Highways Act in case the award was also passed prior to 01.01.2015. The relevant observation reads as follows:

24. In the present case admittedly, the Competent Authority determined the compensation under the NH Act, which is akin to the award under the Act of 1894, passed on 11.07.2014, prior to the Ordinance which made applicable the benefits of the Act of 2013 to the NH Act w.e.f. 01.01.2015. Hence, though, the solatium, interest and interest on solatium is applicable, the same shall be computed based on the provisions of the Act of 1894. ……………………...

27. We, hence, allow the appeal only to the extent of directing that the compensation as determined by the Arbitration Award, shall be conferred with solatium, interest and interest on solatium as provided under the Act of 1894, for which the matter is remanded to the Competent Authority for the purpose of computation and disbursal by the Government to the appellant herein. Therefore, it is clear that even though acquisition is made under National Highways Act and award was passed prior to 01.01.2015, the petitioner is entitled to claim Solatium, interest and interest on Solatium in terms of Tarsem Singh cases I, II and III.

18. In M.Sapabathi case cited by the learned Special Government Pleader, this Court negatived the claim made by the land owners based on the guidelines issued by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, dated 28.12.2017 and also order passed in writ petition filed by similarly situated persons on the ground of delay. In the case on hand, the petitioner claim Solatium, interest and interest on Solatium as per directions of Tarsem Singh cases I, II and III. In Etti Gounder case cited supra it was held claim for Solatium, interest and interest on Solatium are statutory components and official respondents have no discretion to determine it and they are bound to grant it along with market value of land determined by them. The delay on the part of petitioner has been taken into consideration in terms of direction contained in para 14(iii) of Tarsem case

III. Hence, the Sapabathi case relied on by Special Government Pleader will not help her in anyway.

19. In the light of the case laws discussed above and the fact situation, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to claim Solatium, interest and interest on Solatium as per the direction issued by Tarsem Singh cases I, II and III from the date of representation submitted by them on 23.08.2024 to the date of actual payment. It is brought to the notice of this

Court, subsequent to the filing of this writ petition as per the interim direction issued the award amount of Rs.5,56,261/- has been paid to the petitioner’s bank account on 15.09.2026. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interest and interest on Solatium only from the date of representation i.e., 23.08.2024 to date of actual payment i.e., 15.09.2026. The first respondent is directed to calculate the applicable Solatium, interest and interest on Solatium for the above mentioned period, as per the direction issued in Tarsem Singh case III and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

20. With these directions, the writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No costs. 16.10.2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes ub

To

1. The Special District Revenue Officer Land Acquisition, National Highways, Dindigul West Tahsildar Office Buildings, (Old Buildings), Dindigul, Dindigul District.

2. The Deputy General Manager cum Project Director, NH 45, National Highways Authority of India, Trichirappalli.

S. SOUNTHAR, J. ub order made in WP(MD)No.18735 of 2026 16.10.2026