New Delhi, February 23 The Supreme Court, in a Monday hearing, orally observed that land acquisition cases from before 2018 cannot be reopened to grant compensation with interest to farmers whose land was acquired under the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) Act.
This observation was made by a special bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan while beginning the hearing on a plea filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), seeking a review of a 2019 Supreme Court verdict.
In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision to grant compensation with interest to farmers whose land was acquired under the NHAI Act would apply retroactively.
The NHAI, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, stated that the 2019 judgment imposed a significant financial burden (approximately ₹32,000 crore) and should only apply prospectively.
The bench had previously rejected this argument, noting that denying such benefits violated Article 14 (the right to equality) of the Constitution.
"What perhaps weighs on your lordship is the amount of ₹100 crore," Mehta said, adding that in another judgment, the Supreme Court had stated that no previously decided cases would be reopened.
"The cut-off date appears to be 2008, provided claims were valid at that time. Cases from before 2018 cannot be reopened. Those cases that were pending in 2008 remain open. If someone in the early 2020s files an application saying they are entitled to the same benefits based on 2008, we can say yes, but only for the 'solatium', not for interest, as in land acquisition cases," the Chief Justice observed.
The bench heard the brief arguments and asked the parties to submit written submissions, if any, and listed the review plea for hearing after two weeks.
On November 4 last year, the CJI-led bench had agreed to hear in open court the NHAI's plea for a review of its verdict.
The bench had issued a notice on the review plea and scheduled a public hearing on November 11, 2025.
The Solicitor General had told the bench that the matter would have far-reaching implications of approximately ₹32,000 crore, not ₹100 crore as stated in the petition.
On February 4, 2025, the Supreme Court, while rejecting the NHAI's plea, ruled that its 2019 decision allowing the granting of compensation and interest to farmers whose land was acquired under the NHAI Act would apply retroactively.
The NHAI had sought to apply its September 19, 2019 judgment prospectively, thereby preventing the reopening of cases where land acquisition proceedings had already been completed and the determination of compensation had reached a final conclusion.
The bench stated, "We find no merit in the arguments raised by the applicant, the NHAI. We reaffirm the principles established in Tarsem Singh (2019 decision) regarding the beneficial nature of granting 'solatium' and 'interest' while emphasizing the need to avoid creating unjust classifications lacking intelligible differentia. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the present miscellaneous application."
The Supreme Court had stated in its 2019 decision that Section 3J of the NHAI Act, by excluding the applicability of the 1894 Land Acquisition Act and consequently denying 'solatium' and interest for lands acquired under the NHAI Act, was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
"Regardless, the prayer in this application expressly seeks clarification that the decision in Tarsem Singh should be considered only prospectively," it added.
However, the bench noted, "In our considered view, granting such a clarification would effectively nullify the very relief that Tarsem Singh intended to provide, as the prospective application of it would restore the situation to what it was before the decision was rendered."
Referring to the 2019 decision, which held Section 3J of the NHAI Act to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court stated that the broader purpose behind the Tarsem Singh verdict was to resolve and put an end to the problems created by Section 3J of the NHAI Act, which led to unequal treatment for similarly situated individuals.
"The impact of Section 3J was short-lived, due to the applicability of the 2013 Act upon the NHAI Act from January 1, 2015. As a result, two classes of landowners emerged, devoid of any intelligible differentia: those whose lands were acquired by the NHAI between 1997 and 2015, and those whose lands were acquired otherwise," it stated.
It also said that the 2019 verdict must be viewed in the light of the principle that when a provision is declared unconstitutional, any continued disparity strikes at the core of Article 14 of the Constitution and must be rectified, particularly when such disparity affects only a select group.
The Supreme Court clarified that the ultimate outcome of its 2019 decision was limited to granting 'solatium' and interest to the aggrieved landowners whose lands were acquired by the NHAI between 1997 and 2015, and it did not, in any manner, direct the reopening of cases that had already reached a final conclusion.
