National Highway land acquisitions attract 30% solatium and 12% additional compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

The Central Government undertook the East-West Corridor Project for construction of a four-lane National Highway No. 31, with the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) as the executing agency. The petitioner’s land was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, and compensation was paid in two phases.

The petitioner and other affected landowners had earlier approached the Gauhati High Court in W.P.(C) No. 511/2012, seeking solatium at 30% and additional compensation at 12% under Sections 23(2) and 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By order dated 23 May 2017, the Court directed the authorities to pay those benefits upon submission of individual applications.

Although the authorities prepared a list of beneficiaries and quantified the petitioner’s entitlement at ₹1,57,612, the amount was not disbursed to him. The petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No. 60 in the beneficiary list obtained under the Right to Information Act.

The Court applied Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning additional compensation at 12% and solatium at 30%, respectively, as extended to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956.

It relied on the Division Bench decision in Rohiteswar Ray v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 492/2014, order dated 6 January 2017, which held that these benefits were payable in qualifying National Highway acquisitions pending as on 28 March 2008.

The Court also relied on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304, in which the Supreme Court held that the provisions relating to solatium, additional compensation and interest under the Land Acquisition Act apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act; the subsequent review and miscellaneous proceedings were dismissed.

The earlier order dated 23 May 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 511/2012 required the authorities to consider individual claims and make payment within three months of receiving the relevant applications.

The Court found that the petitioner was similarly situated to the beneficiaries covered by the earlier orders. His land had been acquired for the same National Highway project, his name appeared in the official beneficiary list, and the authorities had already assessed ₹1,57,612 as payable to him.

In light of the binding principle in Tarsem Singh and the finality of the earlier orders of the Gauhati High Court, the authorities could not withhold the statutory benefits from the petitioner.

Since entitlement and the amount had effectively been admitted by the authorities, no further adjudication was necessary; only release and disbursement remained.

It directed the NHAI authorities to release and deposit the amount payable, calculated strictly in accordance with the order dated 23 May 2017 and together with interest accrued up to the date of payment, with the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition within six weeks from 14 September 2026.

Upon deposit, the CALA was directed to disburse the amount to the petitioner immediately thereafter. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs.