AUTHOR NAME- Snehil Singh, B.A. L.L.B., Fifth Year.
NAME OF INSTITUTION: Babu Banarasi Das University, Lucknow
Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 376 | Case Type: Miscellaneous Application /1773/2021 |
Date of Judgement: 04 February 2025 | Judgement by: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant |
Petitioner: Union of India & ANR. | Respondent: Tarsem Singh & Ors. |
Disposal: Application Dismissed | Order/ Judgement: Order |
FACTS:
Basically, this case revolves around the acquisition of the land by the government authority for the construction of the National Highways under the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act). The government authority acquires the private property from the various land owners including the Tarsem Singh and others for the purpose of construction of the national highways. Under this process the compensation for the land was determined by the government appointed officer known as competent authority. Under the section 3J of the NH act it is mentioned the laws of the land acquisition act 1894 would not apply to the land acquired under NH act. So the landowners would not be entitled to the solatium or additional compensation and interest which is provided under LA Act. So for the same thing the landowner has appealed in the high court by saying that the provisions of the NH act are unfair and discriminatory while the land acquired under another act such as LA act or the right to fair compensation act of 2013, such land owners have received additional benefits while those under the NH act didn’t receive that. The High Court have listen to this case and have given the judgement that such compensation should be provided to the people under both of the act but the party union of India appealed the decision of High Court in Supreme Court arguing that NH acts compensation provision were valid and that solatium and interest were not meant to be included under this laws.
ISSUE RAISED:
The main issue was that whether the exclusion of the interest and solatium under the Section- 3J of the NH act has violated the constitutional right of the landowner specially under article -14 which has guarantees equality before law.
RULE OF LAW:
The main law under this act has focused on the article 14 of the Indian Constitution which is of equality before law. The respondent has claimed that such a discriminatory treatment with him of the exclusion of the solatium and interest under the NH act as compared with that of under LA Act.
REASONING:
The Supreme Court has basically examined this case and has said that the removal of the solatium and the interest was done arbitrary by the authority and the section 3J was not even protected by the article 31C of the Constitution as the exclusion of such interest was not serving the DPSP under article 39(b).
HELD:
The Supreme Court has declared that the Section 3J under the NH[i] act was held unconstitutional to the extent that it has basically excluded the provision of solatium and interest from the LA act. So, because of it the court has ordered that the landowners whose land has been acquired between the period of 1997 to 2015 were to be entitled for solatium and interest as mentioned under section 21(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the LA act[ii]. The court has said that these additional compensations should be applied retrospectively ensuring fair treatment for all affected landowners.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Case name- Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh & Ors.
(Miscellaneous Application No. 1773 of 2021, In Civil Appeal No. 7064 of 2019)
For full Document click on the link- https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/admin/judgement_file/judgement_pdf/2025/volume%202/Part%20II/2025_2_376-387_1740807060.pdf
[i] The National Highways Act,3, No. 48 of 1956, Act of Parliament (India).
[ii] The Land Acquisition Act, 23(2), No. 1 of 1894, Act of Parliament (India) (repealed).