Bunch of thirty petitions under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Somasekhar Sundaresan J.; pronounced June 9, 2025) by land-losers whose parcels at Mouje Wake and Saundane, Taluka Malegaon, District Nashik were compulsorily acquired in 2008 for four-laning National Highway No.3. The Competent Authority's 2008 Original Award fixed compensation at Rs. 95 to Rs. 154 per square metre; the Section 3G(5) arbitrator substantially enhanced it (Arbitral Award), but neither award paid solatium, Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 (struck down in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304) having then excluded the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The District Court, Nashik's Section 34 judgement of May 4, 2023 repelled the challenge, holding it had no power to modify the award to add solatium although NHAI conceded it was payable. Before the Section 37 Court, appellants pressed only solatium, invoking Tarsem Singh and seeking to read NHAI v. M. Hakeem, (2021) 9 SCC 1 narrowly via Sarjuprasad, 2022 (1) Mh.L.J 290. Held, following Rishabkumar, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 4561, and consistently with Gayatri Balasamy, 2025 INSC 605: solatium under Section 23(2) is payable for acquisitions between 1997 and 2015, including these 2008 acquisitions; but the arbitrator did not err, since solatium lay outside the frame of reference while Section 3J subsisted; and neither the Section 34 Court nor the Section 37 Court may insert it, that being impermissible modification, the permissible powers extending only to severance of invalid portions, correction of clerical, computational or typographical errors, and post-award interest. Petitions disposed of; no order as to costs; land-losers free to enforce the entitlement in appropriate proceedings; NHAI urged to pay the admitted solatium without further wasteful litigation.
