Pre-2015 National Highway Awards Attract Solatium and Interest Under 1894 Act: Supreme Court

Which statute governs solatium and interest where compensation under the National Highways Act was determined before 1 January 2015

Notifications issued in 2011 and 2012 acquired the appellant's land. The competent authority assessed ₹3.47 crore in 2014, followed by arbitration. The landowner invoked the Tarsem Singh cases and the later arbitral award; NHAI accepted benefit entitlement but disputed the governing rates.

Issue and applicable law

The central question was which statute governs solatium and interest where compensation under the National Highways Act was determined before 1 January 2015.

The Court clarified Tarsem Singh II and distinguished the date of acquisition from the date of award. Awards before the statutory cut-off use the 1894 Act; awards after it obtain the more beneficial 2013 Act regime.

Court's reasoning

The Court held that benefits remain payable, but their computation follows the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when the competent authority's award predates 1 January 2015. Its principal reason was that the 2013 Act applied to National Highways acquisitions only from that date, and the Section 3G determination is analogous to a statutory award.

Decision and practical effect

The landowner's claim to calculation under the 2013 Act was rejected while entitlement under the 1894 Act was preserved.

The ruling is significant because it clarifies how the stated legal standard should be applied to comparable disputes without extending the decision beyond the facts reported by the source.

Case details

• Case: National Highways land-acquisition appeal
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vinod K. Chandran
• Advocates: For appellant: Harin P. Raval, Senior Advocate; for NHAI: Ankur Mittal, Senior Advocate
• Source: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/solatium-interest-for-land-acquisition-under-national-highways-act-to-be-computed-as-per-1894-act-for-pre-2015-awards-supreme-court-549238