Compensation for pre-2014 National Highways acquisitions cannot be calculated wholesale under the 2013 Act.

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) challenged orders of the District Court affirming statutory arbitral awards that enhanced compensation for land acquired for a national highway.

NHAI contended that the arbitrator had incorrectly calculated compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”), although the acquisition had commenced under earlier notifications and the original award was made in 2011.

The Court recorded that the appeals arose from acquisition notifications dated 8 February 2010 and 4 February 2011, and that the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s award was dated 23 August 2011.

The appeals relied on a coordinate Bench decision concerning the applicability of the 2013 Act to such acquisitions and on *Union of India v. Tarsem Singh*, (2019) 9 SCC 304.

Whether the 2013 Act governed the calculation of compensation for an acquisition initiated by notifications issued in 2010 and 2011, where the original award was made in 2011.

Whether the arbitral award could calculate compensation under the 2013 Act without applying the principles identified in *Union of India v. Tarsem Singh*.

The Court considered the National Highways Act, 1956, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the 2013 Act in determining the applicable compensation regime for the acquisition.

It relied on *Union of India v. Tarsem Singh*, (2019) 9 SCC 304, particularly paragraph 48, and on a coordinate Bench decision, which it understood to preclude applying the 2013 Act’s compensation framework wholesale to the acquisition in question; the Court noted that the entitlement was to be considered in accordance with the principles stated in *Tarsem Singh*.

The Court accepted NHAI’s submission that the acquisition had commenced before the 2013 Act and that the original award had been made in 2011.

It considered the coordinate Bench’s treatment of the same notification and its reading of *Tarsem Singh*, and concluded that the arbitrator’s calculation under the 2013 Act, without reference to those principles, could not stand.

The Court therefore followed that reasoning in allowing the appeals.

It left all other issues open and directed that any amount deposited before the District Court be released to NHAI with accrued interest, subject to further orders in appropriate proceedings.

The judgment’s operative directions specifically identify the Umanath Maroli proceeding; although the caption also lists the connected MFA concerning Sugandhi and Others, the operative paragraphs do not separately specify relief in that matter.