Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 07.08.2026

Case Overview

  • Writ appeals W.A.No 1064 and 1170 of 2026 were filed by landowners (Baba John, Junaidabanu, Jerina Begum, R. Mani, R. Shekhar; Mustik Basha, Murthy, Yamuna) against the Special District Revenue Officer (LA), National Highways 66, Vellore; the Arbitrator/District Collector, Tiruvannamalai; and the Project Director, NHAI Project Implementation Unit, Villupuram.
  • The appellants sought a mandamus directing the Arbitrator to entertain their representations for 30% solatium and 15% interest on compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 for a bypass road on NH 66 (Tindivanam–Krishnagiri).
  • Original compensation awards fixed market value only, without solatium or interest. An arbitration award granted a 20% enhancement but excluded solatium and interest.
  • The appellants challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Principal District Court, Tiruvannamalai, set aside the award and remanded it, directing the Arbitrator to include solatium and interest per Union of India v. Tarsem Singh‑I.
  • On remand, revised awards dated 15 June 2021 and 31 May 2021 enhanced compensation but again omitted solatium and interest. NHAI’s challenge to these revised awards was dismissed by the District Court.
  • The appellants submitted representations on 25 Sept 2025 directly to the Arbitrator seeking 30% solatium and 15% interest, received no response, and filed writ petitions for mandamus.
  • A Single Judge dismissed the petitions on the ground that the arbitral awards had attained finality and could not be reopened.
  • Counsel for the appellants cited Kuppan v. Competent Authority (order 3 July 2026) and Supreme Court decisions Tarsem Singh‑I, Tarsem Singh‑II, and Tarsem Singh‑III supporting entitlement to solatium and interest where claims were alive on or after 28 Mar 2008.
  • Respondents argued that the Arbitrator was functus officio and that the Supreme Court’s Tarsem Singh‑III barred reopening of claims not pending after the cut‑off date.
  • The Court examined the Supreme Court’s three‑fold pronouncement: (i) declaration of unconstitutionality of Section 3J of the National Highways Act, (ii) affirmation that solatium and interest are integral to just compensation, and (iii) guidelines that only landowners with claims alive on/after 28 Mar 2008 may seek solatium and interest, with interest payable only from the date of claim if raised after that date.
  • The acquisition occurred in 2010; the original award was dated 31 Aug 2012. The revised award of 31 May 2021 omitted solatium and interest despite the District Court’s 10 Nov 2020 order directing inclusion of 30% solatium.
  • The Court referenced Etti Gounder and Others v. District Collector, Namakkal (2021) to hold that authorities become functus officio only with respect to matters within their jurisdiction; solatium and interest lie outside that jurisdiction.
  • Prior writ petitions (e.g., N. Rajasekaran and T. Ramamurthy) had been granted solatium and interest, reinforcing the precedent.

Final Outcome

  • The writ appeals are allowed. The appellants may file a representation before the Special District Revenue Officer and the NHAI Project Director within four weeks of this order.
  • The respondents are directed to grant a solatium of 30% of the market value of the acquired land and the applicable interest, as per Tarsem Singh‑III, within six weeks of receiving the representation.
  • No order as to costs.

Topics: Solatium entitlement, Arbitration finality, Land acquisition compensation