Non-payment of Statutory Solatium for National Highway Acquisitions Constitutes a Correctable Computational Error Under Section 34.

The Appellants’ lands were acquired for National Highway construction under the National Highways Act, 1956 (Highways Act), following a notification dated September 3, 2009.

While the land valuation was undisputed, the Appellants raised claims for 30% solatium under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) during the arbitral proceedings.

The Arbitral Tribunal, in its award dated January 6, 2018, failed to grant solatium.

The Appellants challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), but the District Judge rejected the claim, holding that granting solatium would constitute an impermissible modification of the award.

The Appellants then approached the High Court under Section 37 of the Act.

The court applied Section 3G and 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, as interpreted through judicial precedents.

It relied on Golden Iron and Steel Forging v. Union of India, which struck down the exclusion of solatium as discriminatory under Article 14.

It relied on Sunita Mehra v. Union of India, which established March 28, 2008, as the cut-off date for solatium entitlement.

The court applied Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, confirming solatium is payable for highway acquisitions.

The court utilized the Constitution Bench ruling in Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd., which held that courts under Section 34 can rectify computational, clerical, or typographical errors that do not require merits-based evaluation.

The court reasoned that since the acquisition notification was issued in 2009—well after the cut-off date established in Golden Iron and Steel and confirmed in Sunita Mehra—the Appellants were legally entitled to solatium.

The court distinguished the present case from Sumanbai Bachchav, noting that here, the Appellants had expressly raised the issue of solatium before the Arbitral Tribunal.

Applying Gayatri Balasamy, the court found that since there was no dispute regarding land valuation or classification, the 30% solatium was a purely mathematical addition to the existing compensation.

Therefore, the denial of solatium was a "computational error" and a "patent illegality" that the Section 34 court failed to correct, justifying intervention under Section 37.

The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the lower court’s refusal, and modified the awards to include 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the 1894 Act. The Respondents were directed to compute and pay the modified amount within twelve weeks.