The Supreme Court has dismissed pleas filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) seeking clarification on whether its 2019 ruling in *Union of India v. Tarsem Singh*—which granted solatium and interest to landowners—should apply prospectively.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan ruled that granting such clarification would nullify the relief intended by *Tarsem Singh*. The ruling explicitly ensures solatium and interest for landowners whose properties were acquired by NHAI between 1997 and 2015 and does not require reopening cases that have attained finality. The Court emphasized that modifying or clarifying *Tarsem Singh* would violate the doctrine of finality and undermine the settled nature of the decision.
The Court further criticized NHAI’s attempt to indirectly evade its responsibilities and delay the resolution of a settled issue. It asserted that "what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly."
In *Tarsem Singh*, a bench comprising Justices Rohinton Nariman and Surya Kant had declared unconstitutional Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, which excluded the grant of solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisitions made under the NH Act. The Court ruled that provisions of the Land Acquisition Act—particularly Section 23(1A) and (2) regarding solatium and the interest payable under the proviso to Section 28—must apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act.
Following this decision, NHAI sought clarification on whether the 2019 ruling should apply only prospectively, to prevent reopening cases where compensation had already been finalized. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that such clarification would undermine the relief granted by *Tarsem Singh*.
The Court emphasized that the *Tarsem Singh* ruling was meant to resolve legal uncertainty created by Section 3J of the NH Act, which had resulted in unequal treatment of similarly situated landowners. The impact of Section 3J was rendered redundant by the applicability of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act), to the National Highways Act from January 1, 2015.
As a result, two classes of landowners had emerged: those whose lands were acquired between 1997 and 2015 and those whose lands were acquired thereafter under a different legal framework. The Court held that allowing such discrimination would be inherently unjust, as both equity and equality demand that landowners be treated fairly under the law.
