Mr. Shashikiran N. Patil, Advocate for the v. M. Kagne, AGP for the
Facts
WP-9492-2023++.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD901 WRIT PETITION NO. 9492 OF 2023ISHWRAPPA KANTAPPA MALANGVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9875 OF 2025SIDRAM CHANMALAPPA VADREVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9876 OF 2025MANIK CHANBASAPPA RACHETTI DIED THR LRS PANDIT ANDOTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 9874 OF 2025PANDURANG SAMBHAJI SURWASE DIED THR LRS RAJENDRAPANDURANG SURWASE @ SURWANSHI AND OTHERSVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS.…Mr. Shashikiran N. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for the Respondents – State Mr. Amol Patale, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in all WritPetitions (Competent Authority)Mr. Arun V. Rakh, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in Writ PetitionNo.9492 of 2023 .…CORAM: MANISH PITALE ANDY. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE:07.08.2025 1 of 7
Legal Reasoning
(( 2 ))WP-9492-2023++ORDER (Per: Y. G. Khobragade, J.) :- 1.In these petitions, similar issues are raised by thepetitioners and we find that on earlier occasion, this Court hasdisposed of the petitions, issuing specific directions that have partlyaddressed the concerns raised by the petitioners herein. 2.In all these Writ Petitions, the Petitioners are the ownersof their respective lands situated at Omerga, Taluka Omerga, DistrictOsmanabad and village Bosaga, Taluka Lohara, District Osmanabad.Respondent No.3 has acquired their lands for road widening ofNational Highway No.9 (Old), 65 (New) in the year 2014. TheRespondent Authority has passed the award, but no statutorybenefits, such as, interest and solatium have been granted. Beingaggrieved by the said award, the Petitioners had filed arbitrationproceedings before the Arbitrator. Accordingly, the Arbitrator passedthe award. However, the statutory benefits, interest and solatiumunder Section 23(1)(A)(2) and Section 28 of the Land AcquisitionAct, 1894, were not granted to the Petitioners. The issue involved inthe present Writ Petitions are no more res integra as per the orderdated 17.07.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.240 of2023. 2 of 7 (( 3 ))WP-9492-2023++3.On 17.07.2025, this Court passed a common order in writpetition no. 240 of 2023 (Rajendra Namdev Patil and others Vs. TheCompetent Authority, Land Acquisition and another) with connectedwrit petitions, as under :-“1.When these petitions are called out forconsideration, there is no serious dispute about the factthat the issues raised in these petitions are covered byearlier order passed by this Court in similar matters. On26.06.2025, this Court passed a common order in WritPetition No.12512/2019 (Trimbak Aadhar Bhamre andAnr. Vs. The Union of India and others with connectedwrit petitions) granting relief similar to the relief claimedin this petition.2.It is the case of the petitioners that, they areentitled to solatium and interest on the compensationamount in accordance with principles laid down by theSupreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs.Tarsem Singh and Ors.; (2019) 9 SCC 304.3.In the said order passed in Trimbak Aadhar BhamreVs. the Union of India (supra), while consideringidentical contention, this Court held as follows :“5.This Court, at the Principal Seat, in WritPetition No.11932 of 2019 (Hiraman NamdeoLonare and others Vs. The Union of India andOthers) and a group of cases, vide judgment dated08.04.2025, recorded that the parties agree thatthe main issue involved in the Petitions wascovered by the decision in Tarsem Singh (supra).6.In view of the application made by the NHAIin Miscellaneous Application Diary No.2572 of2020 in Civil Appeal No.7086 of 2019, the Hon’bleSupreme Court had passed an order on30.07.2021, clarifying that the words “(1A) and”appearing in paragraph 41 of the judgment dated 3 of 7 (( 4 ))WP-9492-2023++19.09.2019, be deleted. Accordingly, the reliefthat was granted, was in terms of Section 23 and28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and notunder Section 23(1A).7.In Hiraman Namdeo Lonare (supra), thejudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated04.02.2025 (supra), was also cited. It wasobserved by this Court that the NHAI wouldcompute and pay the Petitioners, solatium andinterest in accordance with the principles laiddown in the said matters, within three months ofthe uploading of the order dated 08.04.2025.8.Thereafter, the judgment was delivered bythe Hon’ble Supreme Court on 04.02.2025,rejecting all the Review Petitions. Neither thePetitioners, nor the NHAI, have ever challengedthe Arbitral Awards before any Court.9.With regard to the objection on themaintainability of these Petitions, an identicalissue was raised before this Court at the PrincipalSeat in Writ Petition No.9608 of 2023 (KisanlalBairudas Jain Vs. Union of India and others) andgroup of cases. By judgment dated 09.05.2025,this Court referred to the law laid down by theHon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Godrej Sara Lee LtdVs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-AssessingAuthority and Ors, 2023 (384) ELT 8 (SC) anddelivered a verdict concluding that the objection tothe maintainability of the Petitions on the groundof an alternate remedy, is overruled.10.We direct the Competent Authority tocompute and pay all these Petitioners, solatiumand interest in accordance with the principlesenunciated in Tarsem Singh (supra), within threemonths from today.11.As like the directions set out in Hiraman(supra), we record that if the payment of suchcompensation is delayed or is wrongly concludedon assumptions and presumptions, we would hold 4 of 7
Decision
(( 5 ))WP-9492-2023++the Officers of the Competent Authority,responsible for the delayed payment or insufficientpayment and in which case, if the interest fordelayed payment or insufficient payment iscomputed, in any proceeding brought to this Courtor before whichever authority, such interestcomponent or insufficient payment, will berecovered from the salaries of the Officers who areresponsible for such erroneous calculations.12.Insofar as the contention of the learnedAdvocate for the NHAI, that there ought not to bea double payment with reference to the loss ofeasementary rights at the rate of 10%, since thatissue is not addressed to the Court in thesePetitions by the Petitioners and since the ArbitralAward has not been challenged by the NHAI, wedo not have to express any view on this aspect.13.In view of the above, all these Writ Petitionsbefore us are disposed off in the light of TarsemSingh (supra) and the above referred orders.”4.We are of the opinion that these petitions can also beallowed and disposed of in view of the above quoted order passed inpetition No.12512/2019 (Trimbak Aadhar Bhamre and Anr. Vs. TheUnion of India and others with connected writ petitions) grantingrelief similar to the relief claimed in this petition.5.It is further pointed out by the contesting respondentsthat this Court may consider directing the petitioners to produce allrelevant documents before the competent authorities for verificationwhen the competent authorities undertake any exercise of 5 of 7 (( 6 ))WP-9492-2023++computation of amounts payable to the petitioners towards solatiumand interest in accordance with the principles noted in the abovequoted order of this Court. It is further submitted that even if thisCourt were to pass an order in favour of the petitioners in the samemanner as earlier orders have been passed in the case of similarlysituated petitioners, it may be observed that such payments shall besubject to challenges raised, if any, under sections 34 and 37 of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.6.Considering the aforesaid submissions made on behalf ofthe contesting respondents, we are inclined to allow these petitions inthe following manner :-(a)In the light of above, these petitions are allowed bydirecting the competent authorities to compute and pay to thepetitioners solatium and interest in accordance with the principlesenunciated in the case of Union of India and another Vs. TarsemSingh and others (supra) within a period of six (6) months fromtoday.(b)It is made clear that the petitioners shall assist thecompetent authorities by producing all relevant documents and uponverification of the same, the competent authorities shall proceed 6 of 7 (( 7 ))WP-9492-2023++further. It is also clarified that payments made pursuant to thedirections given herein-above, shall be subject to the challenges, ifany, raised under sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996.(c) In the light of the observations made herein above, it is furthermade clear that if any of the parties are aggrieved by the quantumand computation carried out by the competent authority whilecarrying out the directions given herein above, the remedy of Section3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 would be available to suchaggrieved party in accordance with law. It is further made clear thatthe competent Authority while implementing the directions givenherein above shall give reasonable hearing to all stake holders. 7.Writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms.8.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ MANISH PITALE, J. ]SMS 7 of 7