TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
............/2025 @ Diary No. 21226/2022) CIVIL APPEAL NO. ............ OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. ............/2025 @ Diary No. 38093/2024) SURYA KANT AND UJJAL BHUYAN JJ. For Petitioner : Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Adv. Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, AOR Ms. Manvi Damle, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivasatava, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Shivang Goel, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Venkita Subramoniam T.r, AOR Mr. Arvind Gupta, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mrs. Binita Jaiswal, Adv. M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR Mr. K. K. Mani, AOR Ms. T. Archana, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Gupta, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR Mr. C U Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. P Sivakumar, Adv. Mr. Y Arunagiri, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, Adv. Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Ms. Jay Jaimini Pandey, Adv. Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, Adv. Ms. Surajita Pattanaik, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Meghraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Yash Pandey, Adv. Mr. Manmonhan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Adv. Mr. Rupesh Goel, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Garima Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Court dated 01.04.2019, whereby the relief of 'solatium' and 'interest' was directed to be raised before the Competent Authority. 3. Additionally, SLP (C) Diary No. 52538/2023 titled 'Raj Kumar and another v. Union of India and others', has been preferred by a private party whose lands were acquired by NHAI. In this instance, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has rejected their claim for the award of 'Additional Market Value' relying upon its decision in National Highway Authority of India v. Resham Singh, National Highway Authority of India v. Resham Singh, 2023:PHHC:053158-DB. whereby the landowners were held entitled to 'solatium' and 'interest', but their claim for the grant of 'Additional Market Value' was declined. These benefits were granted / partly declined in terms of Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act), which were read into the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NHAI Act). A. BRIEF LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND 4. At this juncture, it is pertinent to briefly delve into the legislative background of Section 3J of the NHAI Act vis-à-vis the 1894 Act and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....011 SCC Online Mad 2881. 9. Meanwhile, the 2013 Act came into force with effect from 01.01.2014 and by the promulgation of Amendment Ordinance 9 of 2014, the 2013 Act was amended from 01.01.2015, thereby making its provisions applicable to numerous enactments, including the NHAI Act. Subsequently, upon the lapsing of the Ordinance, a notification dated 28.08.2015 was issued under Section 105, read with Section 113, wherein it was specified that the provisions of the 2013 Act would apply to acquisitions carried out under the NHAI Act. 10. Thereafter, a batch of appeals challenging the decision in T. Chakrapani (supra) were disposed of by this Court on 21.07.2016, following a statement made by the then Solicitor General of India that 'solatium' and 'interest' would be paid on acquisitions made under the NHAI Act. Civil Appeal Nos. 129-159/2014. However, the batch of appeals challenging the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Golden Iron and Steel (supra) remained pending. In two other appeals, challenging the decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, this Court disposed them off, holding that 'solatium' and 'interest' would be awardab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e delayed period. d) Reopening such cases would directly contravene the doctrine of immutability, a fundamental principle which holds that a judgment, once attaining finality, becomes unalterable and cannot be modified. Furthermore, any claims now raised by private parties would be barred by the principles of delay and laches. 14. Per contra, the counsel(s) representing the landowners refuted the claims made by the NHAI and contended as follows: a) Declaring the judgment in Tarsem Singh (supra) as prospective would render redundant the entire exercise of ensuring parity, given that the 2013 Act now governs the field, making the grant of 'solatium' and 'interest' a requisite. Tarsem Singh (supra) was delivered specifically with a view to address the grievances of landowners who were denied the statutory benefit of 'solatium' and 'interest' owing to the operation of Section 3J of the NHAI Act. b) Limiting the judgment to prospective application would result in hostile discrimination, as landowners in Chakrapani (supra), Tarsem Singh (supra), and similar cases have benefited from the declaration of Section 3J of the NHAI Act as unconstitutional. Conversel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by Section 3J of the NHAI Act, which led to the unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals. The impact of Section 3J was short-lived, owing to the applicability of the 2013 Act upon the NHAI Act from the date of 01.01.2015. As a result, two classes of landowners emerged, devoid of any intelligible differentia: those whose lands were acquired by the NHAI between 1997 and 2015, and those whose lands were acquired otherwise. 19. This must be viewed in the light of the principle that when a provision is declared unconstitutional, any continued disparity strikes at the core of Article 14 and must be rectified, particularly when such disparity affects only a select group. To illustrate, rendering the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra) as prospective would create a situation where a landowner whose land was acquired on 31.12.2014 would be denied the benefit of 'solatium' and 'interest', whereas a landowner whose land was acquired the very next day, 01.01.2015-the date on which the Ordinance was promulgated, to read the 2013 Act into the NHAI Act, would be entitled to these statutory benefits. 20. Be that as it may, even if we were to assume that the decision in Tarsem Singh (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sons: First, if this burden has been borne by the NHAI in the case of thousands of other landowners, it stands to reason that it should also be shared by the NHAI in this instance, in order to eliminate discrimination. Second, the financial burden of acquiring land cannot be justified in the light of the Constitutional mandate of Article 300A. Third, since most National Highways are being developed under the Public Private Partnership model, the financial burden will ultimately be passed on to the relevant Project Proponent. Fourth, even the Project Proponent would not have to bear the compensation costs out of pocket, as it is the commuters who will bear the actual brunt of this cost. Ultimately, the burden is likely to be saddled onto the middle or upper-middle-class segment of society, particularly those who can afford private vehicles or operate commercial ventures. We are thus not inclined to entertain the plea for prospectivity on this limited tenet. 24. Lastly, as regards the decision in Sunita Mehra (supra), which is claimed to have prohibited the grant of 'solatium' or 'interest' in concluded cases, we find that this position has already been addressed and clarified in ....