The Supreme Court of India on Monday orally observed that land acquisition cases settled before 2018 cannot be reopened for the grant of compensation with interest to farmers whose land was acquired under the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) Act.
A special bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while hearing in open court NHAI’s review plea against a 2019 judgment of the apex court. In its 2019 verdict (Tarsem Singh case), the court had ruled that farmers whose lands were acquired under the NHAI Act between 1997 and 2015 would be entitled to “solatium” and interest, holding that Section 3J of the Act was unconstitutional for violating Article 14 (right to equality).
Representing NHAI, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the 2019 ruling imposed a massive financial burden of approximately ₹32,000 crore and should apply only prospectively. However, the bench indicated that while pending claims could continue, matters that had attained finality prior to 2018 could not be reopened.
“The cut-off date appears to be 2008, provided claims were alive then. Pre-2018 matters cannot be reopened,” the Chief Justice observed, adding that while parity in terms of solatium may be considered in certain cases, reopening closed matters for interest claims would not be permissible.
Earlier, on February 4, 2025, the apex court had rejected NHAI’s plea seeking prospective application of the 2019 ruling and reaffirmed the principles laid down in the Tarsem Singh judgment. The court had emphasised that excluding solatium and interest under Section 3J created an unjust classification among similarly situated landowners, violating Article 14.
The court clarified that its 2019 decision was intended to remedy inequality faced by landowners whose lands were acquired by NHAI between 1997 and 2015. However, it did not direct the reopening of cases that had already attained finality.
After brief arguments on Monday, the bench granted time to the parties to file written submissions and listed the matter for further hearing after two weeks.
