Allowed¶76

National Highways Authority of India v. Sri Venkatesh

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2026RP/351/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NHAI review petition; solatium and statutory interest; land acquisition compensation under National Highways Authority of India Act, 1980; Tarsem Singh 2026 INSC 291; claims alive on or after 28.03.2008; concluded claims cannot be reopened; Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; no power to modify arbitral award; Hanumantappa MFA No.249/2022; Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC; grounds for review; judgment in MFA No.161/2022 dated 03.07.2025 recalled; MFA restored to file and listed for admission; A.P.No.13/2020 order dated 21.06.2021; Justice K.S. Hemalekha; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; order dated 07.04.2026; RP No. 351 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; judgment dated 03.07.2025 in M.F.A.No.161/2022 recalled; MFA No.161/2022 restored to file and directed to be listed for admission.

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri Venkatesh — Arbitration | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review petition allowed; judgment dated 03.07.2025 in M.F.A.No.161/2022 recalled; MFA No.161/2022 restored to file and directed to be listed for admission.

¶76

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 03.07.2025 in M.F.A.No.161/2022, which dismissed the NHAI appeal and confirmed the grant of solatium and statutory interest to the land owners, is liable to be reviewed. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

In view of the subsequent developments (clarification by the Apex Court in Tarsem Singh), the judgment rendered in MFA No.161/2022 requires reconsideration; sufficient grounds are made out for exercise of the review jurisdiction.

¶72

Ratio / Principle

The conditions laid down by the Apex Court in Tarsem Singh governing entitlement to solatium and statutory interest, particularly with reference to claims concluded prior to 28.03.2008, have direct bearing on the present matter.

¶64

Key takeaways

The Review Petition is allowed; the judgment dated 03.07.2025 in M.F.A.No.161/2022 is recalled, MFA No.161/2022 is restored to file, and the matter is to be listed for admission.ratio¶77

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC by NHAI against the judgment dated 03.07.2025 in M.F.A.No.161/2022, whereby the High Court had dismissed NHAI's appeal and confirmed the District Court order dated 21.06.2021 in A.P.No.13/2020 upholding the arbitral award granting solatium and statutory interest to the land owners. Allowing review: (i) the legal position on entitlement to solatium and statutory interest under the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1980 has since been clarified by the Apex Court in NHAI v. Tarsem Singh, 2026 INSC 291, under which only land owners whose claims were alive on or after 28.03.2008 are entitled to such benefits and concluded claims cannot be reopened; (ii) the Co-ordinate Bench in NHAI v. Hanumantappa, MFA No.249/2022, held that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the Court cannot modify an arbitral award to grant solatium and interest not specifically claimed by the claimants. These developments have direct bearing on the matter and sufficient grounds for exercise of review jurisdiction are made out. Review petition allowed; judgment dated 03.07.2025 in MFA No.161/2022 recalled; MFA No.161/2022 restored to file and listed for admission. (Respondents served and unrepresented.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:19138 RP No. 351 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶8

REVIEW PETITION NO. 351 OF 2025 IN M.F.A. NO.161/2022 (A.A.)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA PIU CHITRADURGA HAVING ITS OFFICE NEAR J.M.I.T, NH-48 (OLD NH-4) (KM.202), CHITRADURGA - 577 502 REPRESNTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR SRI. GADDIPATI GAURAV

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SMT. SHILPA GHANSHYAMBHAI SHAH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI VENKATESH S/O. MUGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶16

SRI GOVINDAPPA S/O. MUGAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶17

RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2 ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF LATE MUGAPPA RESIDING AT BANGARAKKANAGUDDA VILLAGE, JAGALUR TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 228.

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:19138 RP No. 351 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE ARBITRATOR/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HOSPET - CHITRADURGA SECTION OF NH-13 (OLD NH-48), DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, HARIHAR - DAVANAGERE ROAD, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577 004.

¶21

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NH-48 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, P. G. BUILDING, NEAR KSRTC BUS DEPOT, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 502. REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(NOTICE TO R1 TO R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W. SECTION 114 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MFA NO.161/2022(AA) AND REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2025 AT ANNEXURE-A IN M.F.A.NO.161/2022.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The present Review Petition is filed seeking to review

¶29

the judgment dated 03.07.2025 in M.F.A.No.161/2022, whereby this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-NHAI and confirmed the order dated 21.06.2021

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:19138 RP No. 351 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

passed in A.P.No.13/2020, holding that the land owners are entitled for solatium and statutory interest

¶34

Brief facts:

¶35

The petitioner-NHAI has challenged the order of the District Court, while declining the interference with the arbitral award granted solatium and statutory interest to the landowners. The said order has been upheld by this Court in MFA No.161/2022.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

¶37

the judgment in MFA No.161/2022 was passed when ‘the issue as to whether the benefit of solatium and interest are prospective and retrospective was pending’ before the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS

¶38

AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. TARSEM SINGH AND OTHERS¹ , (TARSEM SINGH), wherein the Apex Court clarified that only those land owners whose claims are

¶39

1 2026 INSC 291

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:19138 RP No. 351 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

alive on or after 28.03.2008 are entitled for solatium and

¶44

interest and concluded cases cannot be reopened.

¶45

It is further contended that the claimants have not specifically sought solatium or interest. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. HANUMANTAPPA AND OTHERS ( HANUMANTAPPA ) in MFA No.249/2022 has held that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court cannot modify an arbitral award and grant such relief.

¶46

The respondents though have been served with notice, they chosen to absent.

¶47

Upon consideration of the submission and

¶48

material on record, it is evident that:

¶49

a. The legal position concerning entitlement to solatium and statutory interest under the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1980 have undergone clarifications by the

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:19138 RP No. 351 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

Apex Court in TARSEM SINGH's case

¶54

subsequent to the judgment sought to be reviewed.

¶55

b. In TARSEM SINGH’s case has been

¶56

disposed of with the following directions:

¶57

"14. Considering the facts and circumstances explained in the instant proceedings along with the various submissions placed on record and with a view to balancing the equities regarding delay and the entitlements of the landowners, we issue the following directions:

¶58

(i) All landowners whose claims re: the quantum and /or components of compensation for their lands acquired under the NH Act were alive on or after 28.03.2008, i.e., they were pending before one of the prescribed fora, shall be entitled to seek addition of 'interest', 'solatium', and 'interest on the solatium' to their compensation claim;

¶59

(ii) In the cases where compensation claims are alive on the aforesaid date, but the landowner has claimed 'interest', 'solatium', and 'interest on solatium' after 28.03.2008, no interest on both components shall be payable for the period of delay. Such landowner shall be entitled to 'interest' and

¶60

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19138 RP No. 351 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

'interest on solatium' only from the date on which such claims were raised; and

¶63

(iii) If the claims of the landowners stood concluded prior to 28.03.2008, with no further appeal, Writ Petition, Special Leave Petition, etc., then such landowners are not entitled to seek reopening, review, or modification of the said decision for the purpose of claiming 'solatium' or 'interest'."

¶64

The Apex Court has laid down conditions governing entitlement, particularly with reference to concluded claims prior to 28.03.2008, which has direct bearing on the present matter. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of HANUMANTAPPA has held at paragraph No.7 as under:

¶65

"7. In the present case, the lands were acquired for a public purpose and compensation was duly awarded by the SLAO; the arbitrator rightly rejected the petition on 21.08.2017. As the suit was dismissed, the Trial Court acted without jurisdiction in awarding solatium and interest.

¶66

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:19138 RP No. 351 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

It is a well-settled principle of law that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court's jurisdiction is confined to either upholding or setting aside an arbitral award; it does not possess the power to modify the award's substantive findings. Moreover, the claimants did not pray for the grant of solatium and statutory interest; hence, the award of solatium and interest is untenable. In the absence of a plea for the grant of solatium and statutory interest, the award of the same was untenable. Needless to observe upon dismissal of the suit, the Court became functus officio regarding the subject matter, rendering the award of solatium and interest is null and void.

¶70

Counsel for the respective parties placed reliance on the decisions referred to supra. But I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decisions turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the aforesaid decisions."

¶71