Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed NHAI's application asking it to clarify that Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019) applies only prospectively. Limiting that decision would revive the discrimination Tarsem Singh removed between landowners whose land NHAI acquired between 1997 and 2015 and everyone else. Granting solatium and interest does not reopen concluded cases, so the doctrine of immutability is not breached. The connected appeals were disposed of with directions to compute solatium and interest.
Issues
- Whether the judgment in Tarsem Singh, which held Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 violative of Article 14 for denying solatium and interest, operates only prospectively or also retrospectively.
- Whether granting solatium and interest to landowners whose acquisitions concluded between 1997 and 2015 offends the doctrine of immutability or reopens final cases.
- Whether the financial burden on NHAI, or the earlier decision in Sunita Mehra, justifies limiting Tarsem Singh to prospective operation.
Provisions considered
- Section 3J, National Highways Act, 1956The Court recalled that Section 3J, added in 1997, declared that nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 applies to acquisitions under the Act, thereby denying solatium and interest, and that Tarsem Singh held it violative of Article 14. It refused to confine that holding to future cases. (¶¶ 6, 7, 16, 17, 18)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaMaking Tarsem Singh prospective would leave two classes of landowners, those whose land NHAI acquired between 1997 and 2015 and those whose land was acquired otherwise, without any intelligible differentia; once a provision is struck down, such continuing disparity must be corrected. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 25)
- Article 300A, Constitution of IndiaRelied on as one reason for rejecting NHAI's plea of financial burden: the cost of acquiring land cannot be used to justify denying compensatory benefits in the face of Article 300A. (¶ 23)
- Sections 23(2) and 28, Land Acquisition Act, 1894Identified as the source of solatium and interest that were read into acquisitions under the National Highways Act after Tarsem Singh; the Court directed these to be calculated as Tarsem Singh directed. (¶¶ 3, 5, 26)
- Sections 105 and 113, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013Noted as the route by which the 2013 Act was made applicable to National Highways Act acquisitions from 01.01.2015 (by Ordinance and then the notification of 28.08.2015), which confined Section 3J's effect to 1997-2015 and created the disparity at issue. (¶¶ 9, 18)
Held
- Declaring Tarsem Singh prospective would nullify the relief it was meant to give and restore the position before it was decided. A landowner whose land was acquired on 31.12.2014 would be denied solatium and interest, while one whose land was acquired on 01.01.2015 would get them. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- Even if Tarsem Singh were vague, the absence of an express direction cannot justify an artificial classification within a homogeneous group of landowners whose land the same State acquired under the same statute, especially since landowners have no say in when their land is acquired. Equity and equality forbid such discrimination. (¶ 20)
- Granting solatium and interest, which are inherent compensatory benefits under expropriatory legislation, neither reopens cases that have attained finality nor revisits the merits, the amount of compensation or the legality of the acquisition. Tarsem Singh therefore does not offend the doctrine of immutability; it is the clarification sought that would undermine finality. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- A miscellaneous application cannot be used to obtain indirectly what amounts to a review, or as a tactic to neutralise a decision and get a second chance at relief. (¶ 22)
- The financial-burden argument was rejected because: NHAI has already paid thousands of other landowners; acquisition cost cannot override Article 300A; under the PPP model the burden passes to project proponents; and ultimately commuters bear it. (¶ 23)
- The objection based on Sunita Mehra had already been dealt with in Tarsem Singh, and the Government, having conceded the point through the then Solicitor General, could not retract and reargue it. (¶ 24)
Result
Miscellaneous Application dismissed; leave granted in the connected matters and the appeals disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to calculate solatium and interest as directed in Tarsem Singh; the appeal arising from SLP (C) Diary No. 52538/2023, which concerned refusal of Additional Market Value, dismissed.