Khandappa Nilappa Kore vs the State of Maharashtra through… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

Khandappa Nilappa Kore vs the State of Maharashtra through… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Competent authorities directed to compute and pay solatium and interest on compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the principles in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304, within six months; petitioners to produce documents for verification; payments subject to challenges under Sections 34 and 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; quantum disputes referable to Section 3G(5), National Highways Act 1956 with reasonable hearing; implementation ultimately subject to the outcome of NHAI's review petition before the Supreme Court.

¶Order para 4(a)

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to solatium and interest on the compensation amount, to be computed and paid by the competent authorities in accordance with the principles laid down in Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304.

¶Order para 4(a)

Court's answer

All the writ petitions are allowed; the competent authorities are directed to compute and pay to the petitioners solatium and interest in accordance with the principles enunciated in Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304, within a period of six months from the date of the order.

¶Order para 4(a)

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners shall assist the competent authorities by producing all relevant documents, and upon verification the authorities shall proceed further; payments made pursuant to the directions are subject to challenges, if any, under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶Order para 4(b)

Key takeaways

If any party is aggrieved by the quantum and computation carried out by the competent authority under these directions, the remedy of Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is available in accordance with law; the competent authority must give reasonable hearing to all stakeholders while implementing the directions.ratio¶Order para 4(c)
Adopting the view recorded in Writ Petition No.7866 of 2021 and companion matters, this Court holds that mere filing of the review petition by NHAI would not detain it from disposing of writ petitions raising identical issues already disposed of earlier; however, until the review petition is decided, this Court is governed by the decision in Union of India and another v. Tarsem Singh (supra).ratio¶Order para 4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ., 18.12.2025 [2025:BHC-AUG:36230-DB] — Batch of thirteen writ petitions (ten numbered, three companion) in which petitioners claim solatium and interest on compensation against the Union of India/Government of India, State of Maharashtra and NHAI. Noting the Court's earlier orders in Rajendra Namdev Patil (W.P. 240/2023, order dt. 17.07.2025), Shilpa Rajendra Shinve (W.P. 7866/2021, order dt. 08.08.2025, reproducing Patil) and the Trimbak Aadhar Bhamre line (W.P. 12512/2019), and notwithstanding NHAI's pending review petition before the Supreme Court (RP(C) Diary No(s)44096 of 2025; delay condoned and notice issued on 03.11.2025), the Court held that mere filing of the review petition would not detain disposal of writ petitions raising identical issues, and that until the review is decided it stands governed by Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304. All petitions allowed: competent authorities to compute and pay solatium and interest per Tarsem Singh within six months, petitioners to produce documents for verification; payments subject to challenge under Sections 34 and 37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; aggrieved parties may pursue the Section 3G(5) National Highways Act 1956 remedy on quantum/computation, with reasonable hearing to all stakeholders; the decision is ultimately subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court review petition. Pending applications disposed of.

2025:BHC-AUG:36230-DB

p1 to p10 (NHAI).odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

1 WRIT PETITION NO. 5502 OF 2025

Jarmelsingh Mehasingh Kandela VERSUS

The Union Of India Through The Deputy Secretary And Others AND

2 WRIT PETITION NO. 5549 OF 2025

Dilbersing Mehasingh Kandela VERSUS

The Union Of India Through The Deputy Secretary And Others AND

3 WRIT PETITION NO. 11107 OF 2025 Kishor Thakurdas Diyalani And Another VERSUS The Government Of India And Others AND

4 WRIT PETITION NO. 11168 OF 2025

Sunil Mishrilal Bafna Thr Lrs Anshul And Another

VERSUS The Govt. Of India And Others AND

5 WRIT PETITION NO. 11169 OF 2025

Chandramal P Galani Died Thr Lrs Narayan Chandramal Galani And Others VERSUS

The Govt. Of India And Others

AND

6 WRIT PETITION NO. 11172 OF 2025

Vijaya Devendra Sahani VERSUS The Govt. Of India And Others AND

7 WRIT PETITION NO. 11173 OF 2025

Chandramal P Galani Died Thr Lrs Narayan And Others

VERSUS The Govt Of India And Others AND

8 WRIT PETITION NO. 11174 OF 2025

Anjali Sanjeev Bafna Through Lrs Sanjeev Mishrilal Bafna And Others

VERSUS

The Governmetn Of India Ministry Of Shipping And Others AND

9 WRIT PETITION NO. 12146 OF 2025

Nitin Sudhakar Bendre VERSUS The Union Of India Through The Deputy Secretary And Others AND 10 WRIT PETITION NO. 12991 OF 2025

Asha Subhash Korale And Others VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector And Others

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12113 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12993 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12992 OF 2025

[1]

p1 to p10 (NHAI).odt

Advocate for the petitioners in respective petitions :- Mr. A. D. Sonar, Ms. Sakshi Kale with Mr. Aadesh Vaidya, Mr. S. N. Patil.

GP/ Addl. GP/AGPs for respondents/State in respective petitions :- Mr. A. B. Girase, Government Pleader, Mr. S. K. Tambe, Mr. A. M. Phule, Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Mr. S. B. Narwade, Mr. V. M. Kagne and Mr. R. S. Wani

Senior Panel Advocate/Central Government Counsel for respondents/Union of India in respective petitions :- Mr. Rahul Bagul, Mr. S. W. Munde, Mr. N. T. Bhagat, Mr. R. D. Sanap, Mr. Nitin Salunke, Mr. A. R. Borulkar, Mr. R. R. Bangar,

Advocate for the respondent/NHAI in all the petitions :- Mr. Deepak S. Manorkar.

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE : 18 DECEMBER 2025

ORDER :

. Not on board. Upon mentioning, these matters are taken on board. 2. All the petitions raise similar issues. 3. We have heard learned Advocates representing all the parties. 4. Learned Advocates for the petitioners have pointed out that earlier in group of matters i.e. Writ Petition No.240 of 2023 with companion matters ( Rajendra Namdev Patil and others vs. The Competent Authority Land Acquisition) , this Court had passed an order on 17.07.2025. Thereafter, again in Writ Petition No.7866 of 2021 with companion matters (Shilpa Rajendra Shinve Vs. The National Highway Authority of India, Through its Project Director and another) , order came to be passed on 08.08.2025, wherein order in Rajendra Namdev Patil and others (Supra) was reproduced. Even it was expressed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court that in view of the order passed in Writ Petition

[2]

p1 to p10 (NHAI).odt

No.12512 of 2019 (Trimbak Aadhar Bhamre and Anr. Vs. The Union of India and others with connected writ petitions), the same relief deserves to be granted, however, it appears that from the respondent/NHAI, there were submissions. This Court then based on Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others, [(2019) 9 SCC 304] , held that the petitioners would be entitled to solatium and interest on compensation amount in accordance with the principles laid down therein. When we have also expressed our view similar to the decision that has been taken by the earlier Benches, as they are in fact based on Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others (Supra) , the learned Advocate representing NHAI in all the matters have submitted that review petition has been filed by NHAI before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By order dated 03.11.2025 (Review Petition (Civil) Diary No(s)44096 of 2025), the delay was condoned and notice has been issued. Important point to be noted is that the fact of review petition that has been filed was taken note of by this Court in Writ Petition No.7866 of 2021 and companion matters and it was observed that mere filing of review petition would not detain this Court from disposing of the writ petitions, in the light of the fact that petitions raising identical issues have been already disposed of earlier by this Court. We are also of the same view. However, till the review petition is decided, we are governed by the decision in Union of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others (Supra) and, therefore, we also dispose of all the writ petitions in the following terms :-

(a) In the light of above, these petitions are allowed by directing the competent authorities to compute and pay to the petitioners solatium and interest in accordance with the principles enunciated in the case of Union

[3]

p1 to p10 (NHAI).odt

of India and another Vs. Tarsem Singh and others (Supra) within a period of six (6) months from today.

(b) It is made clear that the petitioners shall assist the competent authorities by producing all relevant documents and upon verification of the same, the competent authorities shall proceed further. It is also clarified that payments made pursuant to the directions given herein above, shall be subject to the challenges, if any, raised under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(c) In the light of the observations made herein above, it is further made clear that if any of the parties are aggrieved by the quantum and computation carried out by the competent authority while carrying out the directions given herein above, the remedy of Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 would be available to such aggrieved party in accordance with law. It is further made clear that the competent Authority while implementing the directions given herein above shall give reasonable hearing to all stake holders.

(d) The decision would then be ultimately subject to the outcome of the review petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

[ HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ] JUDGE JUDGE

scm

[4]

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Jarmelsingh Mehasingh Kandela¶Cause title (W.P. 5502/2025)
Mr. A. D. Sonar, Ms. Sakshi Kale, Mr. Aadesh Vaidya, Mr. S. N. Patil
petitioner
Dilbersing Mehasingh Kandela¶Cause title (W.P. 5549/2025)
Mr. A. D. Sonar, Ms. Sakshi Kale, Mr. Aadesh Vaidya, Mr. S. N. Patil
petitioner
Kishor Thakurdas Diyalani And Another¶Cause title (W.P. 11107/2025)
Mr. A. D. Sonar, Ms. Sakshi Kale, Mr. Aadesh Vaidya, Mr. S. N. Patil
petitioner
Sunil Mishrilal Bafna Thr Lrs Anshul And Another¶Cause title (W.P. 11168/2025)
Mr. A. D. Sonar, Ms. Sakshi Kale, Mr. Aadesh Vaidya, Mr. S. N. Patil
petitioner
Chandramal P Galani Died Thr Lrs Narayan Chandramal Galani And Others¶Cause title (W.P. 11169/2025)
Mr. A. D. Sonar, Ms. Sakshi Kale, Mr. Aadesh Vaidya, Mr. S. N. Patil
petitioner
Vijaya Devendra Sahani¶Cause title (W.P. 11172/2025)
Mr. A. D. Sonar, Ms. Sakshi Kale, Mr. Aadesh Vaidya, Mr. S. N. Patil
petitioner
Chandramal P Galani Died Thr Lrs Narayan And Others¶Cause title (W.P. 11173/2025)
Mr. A. D. Sonar, Ms. Sakshi Kale, Mr. Aadesh Vaidya, Mr. S. N. Patil
petitioner
Anjali Sanjeev Bafna Through Lrs Sanjeev Mishrilal Bafna And Others¶Cause title (W.P. 11174/2025)
Mr. A. D. Sonar, Ms. Sakshi Kale, Mr. Aadesh Vaidya, Mr. S. N. Patil
petitioner
Nitin Sudhakar Bendre¶Cause title (W.P. 12146/2025)
Mr. A. D. Sonar, Ms. Sakshi Kale, Mr. Aadesh Vaidya, Mr. S. N. Patil
petitioner
Asha Subhash Korale And Others¶Cause title (W.P. 12991/2025)
Mr. A. D. Sonar, Ms. Sakshi Kale, Mr. Aadesh Vaidya, Mr. S. N. Patil
respondent
The Union Of India Through The Deputy Secretary And Others¶Cause title (W.P. 5502/2025)
Mr. Rahul Bagul, Mr. S. W. Munde, Mr. N. T. Bhagat, Mr. R. D. Sanap, Mr. Nitin Salunke, Mr. A. R. Borulkar, Mr. R. R. Bangar
respondent
The Government Of India And Others¶Cause title (W.P. 11107/2025)
Mr. Rahul Bagul, Mr. S. W. Munde, Mr. N. T. Bhagat, Mr. R. D. Sanap, Mr. Nitin Salunke, Mr. A. R. Borulkar, Mr. R. R. Bangar
respondent
The Govt. Of India And Others¶Cause title (W.P. 11168/2025)
Mr. Rahul Bagul, Mr. S. W. Munde, Mr. N. T. Bhagat, Mr. R. D. Sanap, Mr. Nitin Salunke, Mr. A. R. Borulkar, Mr. R. R. Bangar
respondent
The Governmetn Of India Ministry Of Shipping And Others¶Cause title (W.P. 11174/2025)
Mr. Rahul Bagul, Mr. S. W. Munde, Mr. N. T. Bhagat, Mr. R. D. Sanap, Mr. Nitin Salunke, Mr. A. R. Borulkar, Mr. R. R. Bangar
respondent
The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector And Others¶Cause title (W.P. 12991/2025)
Mr. A. B. Girase, Mr. S. K. Tambe, Mr. A. M. Phule, Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, Mr. S. B. Narwade, Mr. V. M. Kagne, Mr. R. S. Wani
respondent
National Highway Authority of India (NHAI)¶Advocate list
Mr. Deepak S. Manorkar

Coram

AI extract

Smt. Vibha Kankanwadimember¶Coram
Hiten S. Venegavkarmember¶Coram