Land Acquisition | No Point in Relegating Petitioners to a Futile Remedy: Bombay High Court Directs NHAI to Pay Solatium & Interest

“The NHAI cannot take divergent stances… Ultimately, these are statutory benefits. The entitlement is never seriously disputed.” - In a significant ruling dated 9 May 2025, the Bombay High Court, in a batch of petitions including Kisanlal Bairudas Jain v. Union of India, held that landowners whose properties were acquired under the National Highways Act are entitled to statutory benefits of solatium and interest as per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304. A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain rejected the National Highways Authority of India’s (NHAI) objection based on alternate remedies, terming it “unfortunate and unfair,” and ordered compliance within four months.

The petitioners—dispossessed landowners—challenged the arbitral awards passed under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which did not grant them solatium and interest. Despite approaching the District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, their claims were not granted due to a precedent from a Co-ordinate Bench in Rishabhkumar v. Union of India (2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4561). Although the Principal District Judge recognized the petitioners' entitlement under Tarsem Singh, he felt bound by the earlier ruling and declined to modify the arbitral award.

The primary legal issue was whether writ petitions under Article 226 were maintainable despite the existence of a statutory remedy under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

The Court observed: “There is no point in relegating the Petitioners to the remedy under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, when the relief they claim cannot be granted under such proceedings.”

The Bench emphasized that the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be ousted merely due to the existence of an alternate remedy unless it is efficacious. In this context, the Court reiterated the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise & Taxation Officer, (2023) 384 ELT 8 (SC): “Where the controversy is purely legal and does not involve disputed questions of fact, the writ court must not dismiss the petition on the mere ground of alternate remedy.”

The Court firmly rejected the NHAI’s plea that petitioners should first approach the appellate court under Section 37: “If we were to relegate the Petitioners to the remedy of Section 37, the Appeal Court, being bound by the decision in Rishabhkumar, would have no option but to dismiss such appeals… Such a remedy can hardly be called efficacious.”

Reproaching the conduct of the NHAI, the Court stated: “To raise the objection based on alternate remedy in this Court, appears to be extremely unfortunate and unfair on the part of the NHAI.”

Moreover, the Court clarified that even in Rishabhkumar, the entitlement under Tarsem Singh was acknowledged, but technical limitations under Section 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act precluded relief. Thus, invoking Article 226 was both legally justified and necessary.

The Bombay High Court allowed all the writ petitions and made Rule absolute, holding: “We overrule the objection to the maintainability… and direct the NHAI to pay the Petitioners the statutory benefits of solatium and interest in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh… within four months from today.”

The Bench also cautioned that the petitioners should not be required to initiate contempt proceedings for non-compliance.

Date of Decision: 9 May 2025