NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court orally noted on Monday that land acquisition cases before 2018 cannot be reopened to grant compensation with interest to farmers whose lands were seized under the NHAI Act.
The observation was made by a special bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan while initiating the hearing in open court on a petition by the National Highways Authority of India, seeking a review of the apex court’s 2019 ruling.
The Supreme Court, in 2019, held that the decision to grant compensation with interest to farmers whose lands were acquired under the NHAI Act would apply retrospectively.
NHAI, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, said the 2019 ruling imposed a huge financial burden and should apply only for the future.
The Commission had previously rejected this, noting that deprivation of these benefits violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
“Perhaps what weighed heavily on your lordship was that it was so $“Rs 100 crore,” Mehta said, adding that in another ruling, the Supreme Court had said that any disposed of cases would not be reopened.
“The deadline appears to be 2008, provided the claims are outstanding at that time. Pre-2018 matters cannot be reopened. Those that were pending in 2008 continue. If in early 2020 someone submits an application saying they are entitled to equivalence on the basis of 2008, we can say yes as compensation but not interest, as is the case in land tenure matters,” the ICJ noted.
The bench heard the summary arguments and asked the parties to submit written submissions, if any, and listed the review petition for hearing after two weeks.
On November 4 last year, the ICJ-led court agreed to hear in open court the NHAI’s petition seeking a review of its ruling.
The Tribunal issued notice of the review application and listed the matter for open court hearing on 11 November 2025.
The Solicitor General had told the bench that the order would have wide-ranging implications $32,000 crores, not $100 Crores as mentioned in the petition earlier.
On February 4, 2025, the Supreme Court, while rejecting NHAI’s petition, ruled that its 2019 decision allowing compensation and benefits to be given to farmers, whose lands were seized under the NHAI Act, would apply retrospectively.
The NHAI had sought to apply its September 19, 2019 judgment retrospectively, thereby preventing the reopening of cases where land acquisition proceedings had already been completed and the determination of compensation had become final.
“We find no merit in the allegations raised by the applicant, NHAI. We reiterate the principles laid down in Tarsem Singh’s case regarding the beneficial nature of grant of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ while emphasizing the need to avoid creating unfair classifications lacking clear distinction. Hence, we deem it appropriate to reject the present miscellaneous application,” the bench said.
The Supreme Court in its 2019 decision said that Section 3J of the NHAI Act, by excluding the application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and thereby denying solatium and interest on lands acquired under the NHAI Act, was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
“Notwithstanding this, the prayer in instant application expressly seeks to make it clear that the decision in Tarsem Singh’s case should be deemed effective with prospective effect only.
“However, in our considered view, granting such clarification would effectively negate the relief that Tarsem Singh intended to provide, as its contemplated operation would restore the situation to the same position as it was before the decision was passed,” the bench said.
Referring to the 2019 decision, which held Section 3J of the NHAI Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court said that the broader purpose behind the Tarsem Singh judgment was to resolve and calm the quagmire created by Section 3J of the NHAI Act, resulting in unequal treatment of similarly situated persons.
“The impact of Section 3J was short-lived, due to the applicability of the 2013 Act to the NHAI Act from 1 January 2015. As a result, two categories of landowners emerged, devoid of any clear distinction: those whose land was acquired by the NHAI between 1997 and 2015, and those whose land was acquired otherwise.”
It also said that the 2019 ruling must be viewed in light of the principle that when a provision is declared unconstitutional, any persistent disparity strikes at the heart of Article 14 of the Constitution and must be corrected, especially when such disparity affects only a select group.
The Supreme Court clarified that the final outcome of its 2019 decision was limited to awarding remuneration and interest to aggrieved landowners whose lands were acquired by NHAI between 1997 and 2015, and did not in any way direct the reopening of cases that had already reached the conclusion.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
