Sangita Sudam Avhad and Ors. v. the Union of India Thr the Deputy Secretary and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
solatium; interest; statutory benefits; Sections 23 and 28; Land Acquisition Act 1894; nonpayment; NHAI; National Highway Authority of India; Union of India; State of Maharashtra; Collector Nashik; Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019) 9 SCC 304; Jagannath Vishnu Pawar; Writ Petition No. 16370 of 2023; Manidhari Realtors; SLP(C) No. 36306 of 2025; review dismissed; clarification application; no interim stay; Competent Authority; Special Land Acquisition Officer; Project Director NHAI; deposit versus disbursal; fruits of relief; quantum kept open; Bombay High Court; writ petitions batch; land acquisition compensation; highway acquisition.
What did the court decide?
Writ petitions allowed and disposed of with directions: (i) Petitioners to furnish copies of their respective awards to the Competent Authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer within two weeks of upload of the order, for computing solatium and interest per the Supreme Court's Tarsem Singh holding; (ii) Competent Authority, on receipt of the award copies, to make appropriate computation and intimate the Project Director, NHAI within six weeks; (iii) Project Director, NHAI to accept the computation and deposit with the Competent Authority the amounts payable to each Petitioner towards solatium and interest, within six weeks of receipt of the computation; (iv) Competent Authority thereafter to disburse the amounts received from the Project Director, NHAI/acquiring body to the Petitioners; (v) all contentions expressly kept open regarding calculation of the quantum payable under Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894; (vi) petitions and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of in these terms.