A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan issued discover on the evaluate plea and listed the matter for open courtroom listening to on November 11.
Solicitor Common Tushar Mehta, showing for the NHAI, had lately advised the bench that the matter may have extensive implications of round Rs 32,000 crore and never Rs 100 crore as was acknowledged earlier within the petition.
“Difficulty discover, returnable on November 11, 2025, at 3 PM,” the bench ordered on Tuesday.
On February 4, the highest courtroom, whereas rejecting NHAI's plea, dominated that its 2019 choice permitting the grant of compensation and curiosity to farmers, whose land was acquired below the NHAI Act, would apply retrospectively.
The NHAI had sought the applicability of its September 19, 2019 judgment prospectively, thereby precluding the reopening of circumstances the place land acquisition proceedings had already been accomplished and the dedication of compensation attained finality. The bench had stated, “We discover no advantage within the contentions raised by the applicant, NHAI. We reaffirm the rules established in Tarsem Singh (2019 choice) relating to the useful nature of granting ‘solatium' and ‘curiosity' whereas emphasising the necessity to keep away from creating unjust classifications missing intelligible differentia. Consequently, we deem it applicable to dismiss the current miscellaneous software.” The highest courtroom had stated that in its 2019 choice that Part 3J of the NHAI Act, by excluding the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and thereby denying solatium and curiosity for lands acquired below the NHAI Act, was violative of Article 14 of the Structure.
“Regardless, the prayer within the prompt software expressly seeks clarification that the choice in Tarsem Singh ought to be deemed to function prospectively solely.
“Nevertheless, in our thought-about view, granting such a clarification would successfully nullify the very aid that Tarsem Singh meant to offer, as the possible operation of it will restore the state of affairs to the identical place because it was earlier than the choice was rendered,” the bench had stated in February.
Referring to the 2019 choice, which held Part 3J of the NHAI Act as unconstitutional, the highest courtroom had stated the broader objective behind the Tarsem Singh verdict was to resolve and put quietus upon the quagmire created by Part 3J of the NHAI Act, which led to the unequal remedy of similarly-situated individuals.
“The affect of Part 3J was short-lived, owing to the applicability of the 2013 Act upon the NHAI Act from January 1, 2015. Consequently, two lessons of landowners emerged, devoid of any intelligible differentia: these whose lands had been acquired by the NHAI between 1997 and 2015, and people whose lands had been acquired in any other case,” it had stated.
It had additional stated that the 2019 verdict should be considered within the gentle of the precept that when a provision is said unconstitutional, any continued disparity strikes on the core of Article 14 of the Structure and should be rectified, significantly when such disparity impacts solely a choose group.
Illustrating, it had stated if the 2019 choice was rendered as potential, then it will create a scenario the place a landowner whose land was acquired on December 31, 2014 could be denied the advantage of solatium and curiosity whereas a landowner whose land was acquired the very subsequent day, January 1, 2015 — the date on which the ordinance was promulgated — could be entitled to those statutory advantages.
“That being so, the choice in Tarsem Singh additionally can't be assailed on the grounds that it opens a Pandora's Field or contravenes the doctrine of immutability, because it merely permits for the grant of ‘solatium' or ‘curiosity', that are inherently embedded as compensatory advantages below an expropriating laws. This train can't be equated to reopening of circumstances or revisiting the selections which have already attained finality,” it had stated.
The highest courtroom had clarified that the final word consequence of its 2019 choice was restricted to granting solatium and curiosity to the aggrieved landowners whose lands had been acquired by NHAI between 1997 and 2015 and it didn't, in any method, direct the reopening of circumstances that had already attained finality.
