Landowners whose lands are acquired under the National Highways Act are entitled to 30% solatium and 12% additional compensation.

The twelve petitioners’ lands in Bongaigaon District were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 for the East-West Corridor Project and widening of National Highway No. 31.

The petitioners claimed entitlement to solatium at 30% and additional compensation/interest at 12% under Sections 23(2) and 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as applied to National Highway acquisitions.

In an earlier proceeding, W.P.(C) No. 511/2012, this Court directed the authorities to extend those benefits to similarly situated landowners upon submission of individual applications.

Although the petitioners’ names and payable amounts appeared in the beneficiary list prepared by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), the amounts were not disbursed to them.

During the present proceedings, the NHAI undertook to pay the benefits, and by order dated 13 July 2026 it was directed to do so by 13 September 2026.

Whether the petitioners, whose lands were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, were entitled to solatium at 30% and additional compensation/interest at 12% under the relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

Whether the NHAI and other respondent authorities could withhold payment despite the petitioners’ inclusion in the CALA’s beneficiary list and the prior directions of the Court?

What consequential directions should be issued for calculation, deposit and disbursement of the amounts payable to the petitioners?

The Court applied the National Highways Act, 1956 together with Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which provide for additional compensation and solatium respectively, and the interest provision under Section 28, including its proviso, where applicable.

Relying on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304, the Court held that the Land Acquisition Act provisions concerning solatium and interest apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act.

The Court also followed the earlier decisions in Rohiteswar Ray v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 492/2014, and W.P.(C) No. 511/2012, which directed payment of 30% solatium and 12% additional compensation/interest to similarly situated landowners.

The Court found that the petitioners were similarly situated to the landowners covered by the earlier orders of 6 January 2017 and 23 May 2017, and that the benefit of those orders had not been challenged or set aside.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Tarsem Singh, together with the dismissal of the NHAI’s miscellaneous application and review petition, confirmed the applicability of solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act to National Highway acquisitions.

Since the CALA had already prepared a beneficiary list containing the petitioners’ names and had assessed the amounts payable, the Court treated their entitlement as established and did not permit further withholding of payment.

The Court accordingly directed the NHAI to calculate the benefits strictly in accordance with the earlier order dated 23 May 2017, up to the date of payment, including accrued interest.

The calculations were to be made strictly in accordance with the order dated 23 May 2017 and up to the date of actual payment.

Upon deposit, the CALA was directed to disburse the amounts to the petitioners immediately thereafter.

No order as to costs was made.