KISANLAL BAIRUDAS JAIN DEC THR LEGAL HEIR HITENDRA KISANLAL JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA THR ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY AND ORS
Maintainability of Writ Petitions Despite Alternate Remedy: Entitlement to Solatium and Interest in Land Acquisition Cases Based on Supreme Court's Tarsem Singh Judgment.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:21606-DB
Decision Date: 09-05-2025
List of Laws
The Constitution of India; The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; The National Highways Act, 1956; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- Facts: Several petitioners, aggrieved by the compensation determined for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, sought arbitration. While the arbitrator enhanced the compensation, the benefit of solatium and interest as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh was not granted. The petitioners then filed petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Principal District Judge (PDJ) agreed with the petitioners' entitlement to solatium and interest but felt constrained by a Co-ordinate Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Rishabhkumar Vs Secretary to Government of India to modify the arbitrator's award. The National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) argued that the petitioners should have pursued an alternate remedy under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioners filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, challenging the denial of solatium and interest on their land acquisition compensation. The NHAI raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions due to the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
- Issue: 1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable despite the availability of an alternate remedy under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? 2. Are the petitioners entitled to the statutory benefits of solatium and interest on par with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh?
- Holding: 1. Yes, the writ petitions are maintainable. The court overruled the objection regarding the alternate remedy. 2. Yes, the petitioners are entitled to the statutory benefits of solatium and interest as per the Tarsem Singh judgment.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that relegating the petitioners to Section 37 of the Arbitration Act would be futile because the appellate court would be bound by the Rishabhkumar decision, which held that the Section 34 court could not modify the arbitral award to grant such benefits. The Court emphasized that the rule of exhaustion of alternate remedies is a self-imposed restriction and should not be applied when the alternate remedy is ineffective. The Court also noted that the NHAI had, at earlier stages, expressed willingness to pay the solatium component. The Court relied on Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which grants the High Court extraordinary jurisdiction, and Articles 141 and 144, which mandate that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts and that all authorities shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. The Court directed the NHAI to pay the statutory benefits of solatium and interest to the petitioners within four months.
🔒 For Members Only