Kisanlal Bairudas Jain v. Union of India

903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.MODIFIED.DOCXSayyedIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION(903) WRIT PETITION NO.9608 OF 2023Kisanlal Bairudas Jainsince deceased through legal representatives…PetitionerVersusUnion of India and ors.…RespondentsAND(904) WRIT PETITION NO.11052 OF 2024Ratanlal Ramchandra Jainsince deceased through legal representatives…PetitionerVersusUnion of India and ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.7627 OF 2024Ramnath Rajaram Niphade…PetitionerVersusUnion of India and ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.15636 OF 2024Ramrao Dattatray More…PetitionerVersusUnion of India and ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.15115 OF 2024Chitra Ramesh Khode…PetitionerVersusPage 1 of 14 903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.MODIFIED.DOCXUnion of India and ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.15834 OF 2024Dattatraya Karbhari Niphade…PetitionerVersusUnion of India and ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.7626 OF 2024Sudhakar Baburao Kandekar…PetitionerVersusUnion of India and ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.11876 OF 2024Shivram Vithoba Pawar…PetitionerVersusThe Competent Authority NationalHighway Authority of India and Anr.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.15649 OF 2024Khanderao Waman Vatpadesince deceased through legal representatives…PetitionerVersusCompetent Authority Land AcquisitionNo.2 and Anr.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.11573 OF 2024Dineshbhai Dayabhai Bhalodia…PetitionerVersusPage 2 of 14 903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.MODIFIED.DOCXCompetent Authority National HighwayAuthority of India and Anr.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.10696 OF 2024Ramdas Pundalik Vidhate…PetitionerVersusCompetent Authority National HighwayAuthority of India and Anr.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.15653 OF 2024Navnath Murlidhar Vatpade…PetitionerVersusCompetent Authority Land AcquisitionNo.2, Nashik and Anr.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.7982 OF 2024Raman Damu Jore…PetitionerVersusGovernment of India and Ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.15116 OF 2024Bajirao Raghunath Gaikwad…PetitionerVersusUnion of India and Ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.11051 OF 2024Ashok Mahadu Pawar and Ors.…PetitionersVersusPage 3 of 14 903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.MODIFIED.DOCXUnion of India and Ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.9585 OF 2024Genu Mahadu Jadhavsince deceased through legal representatives…PetitionerVersusGovernment of India and Ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.6876 OF 2024Mayur Bhausaheb Pawar…PetitionerVersusThe Competent Authority and SpecialLand Acquisition Office No.2, Nashikand Anr.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.9542 OF 2024Minakshi Prakash Deshmukh…PetitionerVersusUnion of India and Ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6971 OF 2024Sunil Babulal Burad…PetitionerVersusThe Government of India and Ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.5842 OF 2024Minakshi Prakash Deshmukh…PetitionerVersusPage 4 of 14 903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.MODIFIED.DOCXUnion of India and Ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.15967 OF 2024Rajaram Nathu Bonde…PetitionerVersusGovernment of India and Ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.6036 OF 2024Grafite India Ltd.…PetitionerVersusGovernment of India and Ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO.15704 OF 2024Ramdas Keru Malunjkar…PetitionerVersusGovernment of India and Ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11772 OF 2024Ananda Revji Sanap…PetitionerVersusCompetent Authority and Special LandAcquisition Officer and Ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11888 OF 2024Ramdas Budha Gohire…PetitionerVersusUnion of India and Ors.…RespondentsPage 5 of 14 903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.MODIFIED.DOCXWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 16482 OF 2023Jagannath Vishnu Pagar…PetitionerVersusGovernment of India and Ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.33968 OF 2023Ramdas Murlidhar Gunjal…PetitionerVersusUnion of India and Ors.…RespondentsWITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.33972 OF 2023Sitabai Nivrutti Satbhai…PetitionerVersusGovernment of India and Ors.…Respondents______________________________________________________Mr. P. N. Joshi a/w Mr. Nikhil M. Pujari, Mr. Pratik Rahade for the Petitioner in all petitions. Mr. Sambahji Kharatmol i/b. Mr. Suhas P. Urgunde, for RespondentNo.5 in WP/9608/2023.Mr. Rakesh L. Singh a/w Ms. Heena Shaikh i/b. M. V. Kini & Co.,for Respondent No.5-NHAI in WP/11052/24 & all connected WPs.Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar, AGP for Respondent-State in WP/9608/23and WP Nos.11052, 7627, 15636, 15115, 15834 of 2024.Ms. S. R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent-State in WP Nos.7626, 11876, 15649, 11573, 10696 of 2024.Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for Respondent-State in WP Nos.15653, 7982, 15116, 11051, 9585 of 2024. Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for Respondent-State in WP Nos.6876, 9542, 6971, 5842, 15967 of 2024 and WPST/33972/2023. Ms. V. R. Raje, AGP for Respondent-State in WP Nos.6036, 15704, 11772, 11888 of 2024 and 16482/2023 and WPST/33968/2023.Page 6 of 14 903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.MODIFIED.DOCX______________________________________________________CORAM:M.S. Sonak &Jitendra Jain, JJ.DATED:9 May 2025ORAL JUDGMENT:- (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2.We issue Rule in each of these petitions. The Rule is madereturnable forthwith, with the consent of the learned counsel forthe parties.3.Yesterday, we made it clear that these matters would betaken up for final disposal today because there was never anydispute that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inthe case of Union of India vs Tarsem Singh and Ors.1 wasapplicable in these matters, entitling all the Petitioners to thestatutory benefits of interest and solatium on par with theprovisions of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency inLand Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 4.Mr. Sambhaji Kharatmol, the learned counsel appearing onbehalf of the National Highway Authority of India in some of thesematters, has tendered an affidavit-in-reply. He has contended thatthese Petitions should not be entertained because all thePetitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 37 of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). Further, the affidavit states that if the Petitioners are affected by non-payment of solatium and interest in terms of the decision of the1(2019) 9 SCC 304Page 7 of 14 903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.MODIFIED.DOCXHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (Supra),'petitioner should promptly file claims with the CompetentAuthority, including all necessary documentation and prove that, he is entitled for solatium and interest, but the Petitioner withoutavailing the remedy directly approached this Hon'ble Court by wayof writ petition, which is against the settled position of law, hence, the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner deserves to be dismissedholding that the same is not maintainable.’ 5.In all these matters, the Petitioners were aggrieved with thecompensation amount determined and, therefore, applied for thematter to be resolved through Arbitration as provided underSection 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The Arbitratorso appointed made an award, enhancing the compensation. However, the benefit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin Tarsem Singh (supra) was not granted. 6.Therefore, the Petitioners preferred petitions under Section34 of the Arbitration Act. A common judgment and order dated 4May 2023 disposed of these. In this judgment and order, thePrincipal District Judge, Nashik, [PDJ], in fact agreed with thePetitioner's contention that they were entitled to solatium andinterest in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inTarsem Singh (supra). This judgment and order records that eventhe National Highway Authority expressed willingness to pay thesolatium component from the decision date in Tarsem Singh(supra). However, the PDJ, being bound by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rishabhkumar VsPage 8 of 14 903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.MODIFIED.DOCXSecretary to Government of India2, felt disabled to modify theArbitrator's award and grant the Petitioners relief in terms of thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Tarsem Singh(supra). 7.The above is evident from paragraphs 25 to 26 of the PDJ’sorder disposing of the Petitioner's Petitions under Section 34 of theArbitration Act. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are transcribed below forthe convenience of reference: -“25. I do agree with the submissions made by learned AdvocateMr. S.N.Baste appearing for the applicants that applicants areentitled for solatium and interest on solatium. So also NationalHighways Authority expressed willingness to pay the solatiumcomponents from the date of decision of Hon'ble Apex Courtpassed in case of Tarsem Singh.26. However, in the light of legal principle laid down by theHon'ble Bombay High Court in Rishabhkumar s/o. BabulalJejani (Supra), grant of statutory amount and components arenot permissible in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 ofthe Arbitration and Conciliation Act.”8.Incidentally, Rishabhkumar (supra) takes the view thatwhatever the Principal District Judge in a Petition under Section34 of the Arbitration Act could not have done, the same cannot bedone by the Appeal court under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.In such circumstances, we cannot appreciate the NHAI's stance ofraising the plea that these petitions should not be entertainedbecause the Petitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 37of the Arbitration Act. 22021 SCC OnLine Bom 4561Page 9 of 14 903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.MODIFIED.DOCX9.It is well settled that the rule of exhaustion of alternateremedies is a self-imposed restriction on exercising extraordinaryjurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Beforeapplying this Rule, the court must see whether the alternateremedy is indeed efficacious. There is no point in relegating thePetitioners to the remedy under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, when the relief they claim cannot be granted under suchproceedings.10.If we were to relegate the Petitioners to the remedy ofSection 37, the Appeal Court, being bound by the decision inRishabhkumar (supra), would have no option but to dismiss suchappeals by declining to modify the arbitral award. This would befutile. Such a remedy can hardly be called an efficacious one. Accordingly, we reject the unfortunate contention that thesePetitions should not be entertained because the Petitioners havean alternative remedy under Section 37 of the said Act.11.In the case of M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd Vs The Excise andTaxation officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Ors.3,Civil Appealno.5393 of 2010 decided on 1 February 2023, the Hon'bleSupreme Court interfered with the dismissal of the writ petition bythe High Court because the petitioner had not availed thealternate remedy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that suchdismissal was improper because the High Court failed to examinewhether an exceptional case has been made out. The Hon'bleSupreme Court also noted that mere availability of an alternative32023 (384) ELT 8 (SC)Page 10 of 14 903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.MODIFIED.DOCXremedy of appeal or revision would not oust the jurisdiction of theHigh Court and render a writ petition 'not maintainable'. Wherethe controversy is purely legal one and it does not involvedisputed questions of fact but only involves questions of law, thenit should be decided by the High Court instead of dismissing thewrit petition on the ground of an alternative remedy beingavailable.12.There is no serious dispute regarding the facts or applicablelaw in these matters. The PDJ has held that the Petitioners areentitled to the benefits in terms of Tarsem Singh (Supra). TheNHAI offered such benefits from the date of the judgment. The so-called alternative remedy is ineffective. There is no benefit inrelegating the Petitioners to avail themselves of such analternative remedy, thus depriving them of the benefits to whichthey are entitled.13.In all these matters, as noted earlier, there is no disputeabout the Petitioners being entitled to the benefits of the solatiumand interest under the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inTarsem Singh (Supra). Even the counsel for NHAI who appearedbefore the Principal District Judge, fairly submitted that the NHAIwas willing to pay solatium component, though, from the date ofthe decision in the case of Tarsem Singh (Supra). After all this, toraise the objection based on alternate remedy in this Court, appears to be extremely unfortunate and unfair on the part of theNHAI. The NHAI cannot take diversion stances. Ultimately, theseare statutory benefits. The entitlement is never seriously disputed. Page 11 of 14 903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.MODIFIED.DOCXEven the Principal District Judge, in terms held that the Petitionerswere entitled to such benefits given the decision in Tarsem Singh(Supra).14.These are not adversarial proceedings, and we are happy tonote that NHAI did not treat them as adversarial proceedings atleast before the District Court. Even in this Court, Mr. Singh, whoappeared for NHAI in some of the matters, did not raise anobjection based on an alternate remedy. The objection was onlyraised by Mr. Sambhaji Kharatmol, no doubt, on the instructions ofhis senior, who had appeared yesterday and raised the sameobjection. 15.Though no contention was pressed before us that thebenefits of Tarsem Singh (Supra) should be given only from thedate on which the Hon'ble Supreme Court made such a decision, still, we must add that such a plea was attempted to be raisedbefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing the MiscellaneousApplication. Such a Miscellaneous Application was rejected on 4February 2025. We have taken cognisance of the MiscellaneousApplication filed in Tarsem Singh (Supra) and the orders madethereon in our order dated 8 April 2025, disposing of Writ PetitionNo.11932 of 2019 and connected matters. 16.Even in Rishabhkumar (supra), the Co-ordinate Benchagreed that the appellants were entitled to the benefits in terms ofTarsem Singh (supra). However, the Co-ordinate Bench held thatif the Arbitrator failed to grant such benefits in the arbitral award, the Section 34 Court was not entitled to modify and grant suchPage 12 of 14 903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.MODIFIED.DOCXmonetary benefits. The Co-ordinate Bench also held that whateverthe Section 34 Court could not do, even the appeal Court underSection 37 could not do. Accordingly, orders made by the Section34 Court granting such statutory benefits were interfered. TheCoordinate Bench clarified that such interference was due to therestricted powers possessed by the Section 34 and Section 37Courts. 17. In fact, in paragraphs 62 and 66, the Co-ordinate Benchheld that though such reliefs could not have been granted bymodifying the awards, the landowners would have to take suchsteps as are permissible in law to seek additional reliefs beyondwhat may have been granted in the award. Since the petitionersonly claim statutory reliefs in terms of the decision of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra), we seenothing wrong in their invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction ofthis Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 18.We also rely upon our reasoning in the order dated 8 April2025, disposing of the Writ Petition No.11932 of 2019 andconnected matters. In this order, the petitioners had directlypetitioned this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia. The NHAI’s counsel, Mr. Rakesh Singh, very fairly, acceptedthat the matter was covered by the decision of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra). Evenotherwise, we were satisfied that the matter was covered. Accordingly, directions were issued to grant the petitioners thePage 13 of 14 903-WP.9608.2023 & 904.WP.11052.2024.MODIFIED.DOCXstatutory benefits in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra). 19. In our order dated 8 April 2025, we referred to Article 141of the Constitution, which provides that the law declared by theSupreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territoryof India. We also referred to Article 144 of the Constitution, whichprovides that all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory ofIndia shall act to the aid of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 20.Accordingly, for all the above reasons, we overrule theobjection to the maintainability of these petitions on grounds ofalternate remedy and allow all these petitions by directing theNHAI to pay to the Petitioners the statutory benefits of solatiumand interest in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin Tarsem Singh (supra) within four months from today withoutrequiring the Petitioners to institute any contempt petitions fornon-compliance.21.The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without anycost order. 22.All concerned must act on the authenticated copy of thisorder.(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)(This order is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 6 January 2026) Page 14 of 14