The Supreme Court has issued notice on NHAI’s review petition challenging the 2019 Tarsem Singh judgment, which extended solatium and interest benefits to land acquired under the National Highways Act before 2019.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice on the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)’s review petition challenging the retrospective application of the 2019 landmark judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh.
The petition seeks reconsideration of the Court’s earlier decision that declined NHAI’s plea for a prospective application of the ruling, which extended the benefit of solatium and interest to landowners whose properties were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act).
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order on Monday, calling for a response to NHAI’s plea.
Background
In Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019), a bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Surya Kant struck down Section 3J of the NH Act, 1956, which had excluded the payment of solatium and interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Court held that the benefits under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) (solatium), and Section 28 (interest) of the 1894 Act would apply equally to land acquisitions made under the National Highways Act.
This judgment effectively ensured that landowners whose lands were acquired for national highway projects before the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) came into force would also receive enhanced compensation.
NHAI’s Plea for Prospective Application
Following the 2019 ruling, NHAI filed a petition requesting that the Tarsem Singh judgment be applied prospectively, that is, only to future acquisitions.
NHAI argued that a retrospective application would reopen settled compensation cases, impose a massive financial burden (estimated at around ₹100 crore), and disrupt the financial planning of national highway projects across the country.
However, the Supreme Court rejected this plea, stating that such a limitation would defeat the purpose of the Tarsem Singh judgment. The Court emphasized that the 2019 verdict aimed to correct discrimination caused by Section 3J, which had created inequality between landowners compensated under different legal regimes.
Court’s Observations
The bench led by Justice Surya Kant and Justice Bhuyan observed that the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14 and the right to property under Article 300A demanded that all landowners be treated equally.
“The broader purpose behind Tarsem Singh was to resolve and put quietus upon the quagmire created by Section 3J of the National Highways Act, which led to unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals… Both equity and equality demand that no such discrimination be permitted,”
the Court noted.
The bench also dismissed NHAI’s argument on financial burden, pointing out that the authority had already paid similar compensation in thousands of other cases. It further stated that the cost of acquisition is generally shared through public-private partnership (PPP) models, meaning the financial impact would not fall directly on the public exchequer.
After previously directing authorities to calculate and disburse solatium and interest in line with the Tarsem Singh ruling, the Supreme Court will now re-examine NHAI’s concerns through the review petition.
Case Title:
National Highways Authority of India v. Tarsem Singh & Ors.
Diary No.: 44096/2025