The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a review petition filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) seeking to limit the application of the 2019 Tarsem Singh judgment to future land acquisitions. The 2019 ruling established that solatium and interest are applicable to land acquisitions carried out under the National Highway Act.
Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan refused to review the 2025 judgment affirming the retrospective application of the Tarsem Singh ruling. The Court clarified that claims finalized before March 28, 2015 – the date the 2013 RFCTLARR Act was extended to National Highway acquisitions – cannot be revisited.
Financial Implications Not a Factor
The NHAI had argued that applying the ruling retroactively would create a financial liability of approximately ₹29,000 crore. However, the Court stated that the financial implications could not supersede the constitutional guarantee of just compensation to landowners. The Court observed that fairness in compensation should not be contingent on the financial burden placed on the acquiring authority.
“The grant of solatium and interest cannot be made contingent upon the magnitude of the financial burden. The constitutional guarantee of just compensation cannot be diluted on that basis. Mere projection of financial liability does not constitute a valid ground for review,” the Court stated.
Clarification on Existing Cases
The Court also clarified the scope of entitlement, stating that landowners with pending proceedings as of March 28, 2015, are entitled to claim solatium and interest. Landowners who received enhanced compensation but did not specifically claim solatium and interest may also pursue those benefits, with interest accruing from the date of the claim.
However, the Court emphasized that cases finalized before March 28, 2015, cannot be reopened to claim solatium or interest, as doing so would undermine legal certainty.
The Solicitor General requested a clarification regarding interest calculations under Section 3H of the NH Act, but Chief Justice Surya Kant declined, citing potential conflict with previous judgments in Tarsem Singh-I and Tarsem Singh-II.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the original Tarsem Singh judgment about?
The 2019 Tarsem Singh judgment declared Section 3J of the National Highways Act 1956 unconstitutional to the extent it excluded solatium and interest as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for land acquisitions under the National Highway Act.
What did the NHAI inquire the Supreme Court to do in its review petition?
The NHAI sought to declare that the 2019 Tarsem Singh judgment should apply only prospectively, meaning it would not apply to land acquisitions completed before the ruling.
What happens to claims that were already finalized before March 28, 2015?
The Court clarified that claims which had attained finality prior to March 28, 2015, cannot be reopened for the purpose of claiming solatium or interest.
As the Court has now definitively addressed the scope of the Tarsem Singh ruling, what impact will this have on future land acquisition proceedings and the financial planning of infrastructure projects?
