Madras High Court
Baba John vs The Competent Authority on 7 August, 2026
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 21.07.2026
DELIVERED ON : 07.08.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.Nos.1064 and 1170 of 2026
W.A.No.1064 of 2026:
1. Baba John
S/o.Abdul Subhan,
35, Muslim Street, Samudram Village,
Nallavanpalayam. Tiruvannamalai.
2. Junaidabanu
S/o.Babajan,
35, Muslim St, Samudram Village,
Tiruvannamalai.
3. Jerina Begum
S/o. Abdul Samad,
60B, Adam Gardan, Samudram Village,
Tiruvannamalai.
4. R.Mani
S/o. Ramachandran,
170/685, Senthu Kinaru Street,
Samudram Village, Tiruvannamalai.
5. R.Shekhar
S/o. Ramachandran,
241, Mariyamman Koil Street,
Samudram Village, Tiruvannamalai.
Appellant(s)
___________
Page 1 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
Vs
1. The Competent Authority
The Special District Revenue Officer (LA),
National Highways 66, Vellore.
2. The Arbitrator/District Collector
Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Project Director
National Highways Authority of India,
Project Implementation Unit, No.26,
First Floor, VGP Nagar, Villupuram.
Respondent(s)
W.A.No.1170 of 2026
1. Mustik Basha
S/o.Mohammed Sahib,
No.25,Adham Garden, Samudram,
Nallavanpalayam, Tiruvannamalai.
2.Murthy
S/o.Annamalai,
54 A, Tiruvmanjana Gopura Street,
Tiruvannamalai.
3.Yamuna,
W/o.Sekar,
No.89,Aanaikatti Street,
Tiruvannamalai.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Competent Authority
The Special District Revenue Officer (LA),
National Highways 66, Vellore.
___________
Page 2 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
2. The Arbitrator/District Collector
Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Project Director
National Highways Authority of India,
Project Implementation Unit, No.26,
First Floor, VGP Nagar, Villupuram.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set
aside the separate orders passed by the learned Single Judge even
dated 24.11.2025 in W.P.Nos.45624 of 2025 and 45627 of 2025.
For Appellant(s) Mr.S.Vijaya Kumar
in both appeals: Senior Counsel
for Mr. A.V.Balusamy
For Respondent(s) Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali
in both appeals: Government Pleader for R1 and R2
Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj for R3
COMMON JUDGMENT
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
These two writ appeals stem from the orders passed by the
learned Single Judge on 24.11.2025, dismissing the writ petitions
seeking a directive compelling the Arbitrator/District Collector to
entertain their representations for awarding 30% solatium and 15%
interest on land acquisition compensation under the National Highways
Act, 1956 [for brevity, “the Act”].
___________
Page 3 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
2.1. The facts in a nutshell are that the lands belonging to the
appellants were acquired for constructing a bypass road on National
Highway 66 (Tindivanam–Krishnagiri). The original awards passed by
the first respondent/Competent Authority fixed compensation without
solatium and statutory interest.
2.2. Aggrieved by the low valuation and denial of solatium and
interest, the appellants initiated arbitration. The Arbitrator granted
20% enhancement, while explicitly excluding solatium and interest.
2.3. The appellants challenged these awards under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Principal District Court,
Tiruvannamalai, set aside the awards and remanded the matters to the
Arbitrator for fresh evaluation, with a specific direction to allow
solatium and interest as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh1 [Tarsem Singh-I].
2.4. Upon remand, the Arbitrator passed revised awards on
15.6.2021 and 31.5.2021, respectively, enhancing the compensation
1
(2019) 9 SCC 304
___________
Page 4 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
market value to twice the original award. However, the Arbitrator again
omitted the relief of solatium and interest.
2.5. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) challenged
these revised awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, but the District Court dismissed NHAI’s petitions,
confirming the Arbitrator’s awards. Even though the appellants did not
challenge the revised awards, seeking solatium and interest, however,
the appellants on 25.09.2025 submitted representations directly to the
Arbitrator seeking 30% solatium and 15% interest, relying on a
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh-I (supra).
Receiving no response, they filed writ petitions seeking a mandamus to
enforce these representations.
2.6. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions, holding
that once arbitral awards achieve finality without being challenged
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, they cannot
be resurrected or modified through representations or writ
proceedings. Hence, the present appeals.
___________
Page 5 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
3.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that
the learned Single Judge erred in declining to direct the Arbitrator to
consider the representations dated 25.9.2025, for granting 30%
solatium and 15% interest.
3.2. It is further submitted that, in a subsequent order passed in
Kuppan v. Competent Authority2, the learned Single Judge granted
relief to similarly situated landowners by directing the disposal of their
representations.
3.3. He finally submitted that the landowners ought not to be
deprived of statutory benefits merely on procedural grounds.
4.1. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the claim of the appellants is
legally unviable under the settled principles of law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the latest decision National Highways
Authority of India v. Tarsem Singh3 [Tarsem Singh-III].
2
Order dated 3.7.2026 in W.P.No.25107 of 2026
3
2026 SCC OnLine SC 481
___________
Page 6 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
4.2. He further submitted that a Division Bench of the Madurai
Bench of this Court in National Highways Authority of India v. V.R.Ravi
and others4 explicitly overturned orders granting unrestricted
directions by the learned Single Judge, where claims suffered from
inordinate delay.
5.1. Learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that the
inter se dispute between the parties achieved finality when the
Arbitrator passed revised awards on 15.6.2021 and 31.5.2021,
respectively. The appellants never challenged these awards under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
5.2. It is further submitted that once an arbitral award is
pronounced, the Arbitrator becomes functus officio. There exists no
statutory power or jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 or the National Highways Act, 1956, for an Arbitrator to
entertain post-award representations.
5.3. Referring to paragraphs 12 and 14 of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court decision in Tarsem Singh-III (supra), learned counsel submitted
4
Judgment dated 25.6.2025 in W.A.(MD) No.2569 of 2024
___________
Page 7 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
that stale claims that have already attained finality cannot be
reopened.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing on both sides and
perused the material on record, including the precedents cited, we
proceed to decide the appeals.
7. The constitutional position regarding solatium and interest on
land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, has evolved
through three crucial rulings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
(i) In Tarsem Singh-I (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
declared Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956
unconstitutional to the extent it denied solatium and interest to
landowners. It extended parity with Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2)
and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. [However, reference
to Section 23(1-A) was later deleted in National Highway Authority of
India v. Tehal Singh (2021 SCC OnLine SC 3175)].
(ii) In Union of India v. Tarsem Singh5 [Tarsem Singh–II], the
Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the argument that Tarsem Singh–I
5
2025 SCC OnLine SC 235
___________
Page 8 of 20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.(supra) should operate only prospectively, establishing that solatium
and interest are integral to the right to just compensation under Article
300-A of the Constitution.
(iii) In Tarsem Singh–III (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
addressed the scope of delayed and stale claims and issued the
following directions:
“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:
(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;
(ii) In the cases where compensation claims
are alive on the aforesaid date, but the
landowner has claimed ‘interest’, ‘solatium’, and
___________
Page 9 of 20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.‘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 ‘interest on solatium’
only from the date on which such claims were
raised; and
(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’.”
[emphasis supplied]
8. In effect, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following
binding directives regarding finality and delay:
(i) Where the claims of landowners stood concluded prior to
28.03.2008 without further appeal, writ petition, or Special Leave
Petition etc., landowners are not entitled to seek reopening or review
to claim solatium or interest; and
(ii) only where compensation claims remained “alive”
(i.e., pending before a prescribed statutory forum) on or after
___________
Page 10 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
28.03.2008, the landowners are entitled to seek addition of solatium
and interest.
9. In the present case, the acquisition of lands for the formation
of a bypass road on National Highway 66 (Tindivanam-Krishnagiri)
itself was made in the year 2010, in which the competent authority
passed an award on 31.08.2012. In the arbitration petition preferred
before the second respondent seeking enhanced compensation along
with solatium and interest, an award dated 15.06.2021 came to be
passed without awarding solatium and interest.
10. In the challenge made to the award under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Principal District
Court, Tiruvannamalai, in Arbitration O.P.No.4 of 2008, the following
order was passed on 10.11.2020:
“In the result, this Arbitration Original Petition is Allowed.
The Award passed in Arbitration No.184/2012, 185/2012,
187/2012, 224/2012 & 225/2012 dated 14.03.2016 by the
Arbitrator/District Collector, Tiruvannamalai is setaside and the
matter is remanded back to Arbitrator/District Collector,
Tiruvannamalai to fix the correct market value for the property
by analysing the petitioners’ property with that of Revenue
___________
Page 11 of 20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.Register and sale deed fixed by the Petitioners’ Counsel before
this Court has to be taken in to consideration and in a proper
manner value has to be determined for each and every one of
the properties and 30% Solatium also to be fixed as per
Hon’ble Supreme court ruling CJD 2019 SC 1097. Further
the matter is to be decided in accordance with law and also it is
ordered that this matter should be disposed of within three
months from the date of receipt of this order and Court Fee is
ordered to be refunded to the Petitioners.”
11. However, in the subsequent award dated 31.05.2021 passed
after remand, the second respondent/Arbitrator, even though
enhanced the compensation, ignored to award solatium and interest,
as directed above, in line with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Tarsem Singh-I (supra). As referred to earlier, even though
the appellants did not challenge the revised award dated 31.05.2021,
they submitted a representation dated 25.09.2025 directly to the
second respondent/Arbitrator, seeking payment of 30% solatium and
15% interest as held in Tarsem Singh-I (supra).
12. The main plank of contention on the side of the respondents
is that, since the appellants have not challenged the award dated
31.05.2021, they are not entitled to seek solatium and interest and
___________
Page 12 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
the Arbitrator has become functus officio.
13. We are not in agreement with the said contention, in view of
the specific decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh-III
(supra).
14. A learned single Judge of this Court, in the case of Etti
Gounder and Others v. The District Collector, Namakkal and
Others6, dealt with a similar plea that the Arbitrator has become
functus officio and held that since power to decide solatium and
interest fall outside the jurisdiction of the authority, they will not
become functus officio. The relevant extract reads thus:
“26. The NHAI contends that neither the CALA nor the
Statutory Arbitrator can entertain any representation of the
petitioners for payment of solatium and interest since on passing
their respective awards, these authorities have become functus
officio. It is already demonstrated that neither of these authorities
have any power to decide on the solatium and interest, nor have
they decided the issue before. So far as the present plea goes, an
authority will become functus officio only as concerning matters
which fall within the domain of their authority to decide. Since,
solatium and interest fall outside their jurisdiction, they will not6
(2021) 6 CTC 618
___________
Page 13 of 20https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.become functus officio if they are now required to perform anything
in view of the Tarsem Singh case.
27. The issue can be viewed from another angle. If Sec.3-J
were not there in the statute book, the CALA would have done
exactly that which their counterparts under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, would be under a compulsion to do: to add the solatium and
interest to the market value of the property acquired. When the
constitutionality of Sec.3-J was challenged from Lalita case of the
Karnataka High Court (from where it all started) to Tarsem Singh
case, notwithstanding the Chakrapani ratio or the Sunita Mehra ratio
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the interregnum, the
NHAI could play an excuse-card to deny payment of solatium and
interest. Not any longer after the Tarsem Singh case. If the Courts
are the guardian of the Fundamental Rights of the citizens, and if the
compensation (including solatium and interest) as a concept are
integral to the right to property and hence right to life, a duty is
upon the Courts not to reduce themselves to Constitutional
irrelevancy in letting the NHAI bask under the comfort of its core-
misconception.
28. Alternatively, even if the contention of the NHAI that the
authorities to whom the representations have been addressed have
become functus officio is presumed valid, let it make the payment
directly to the petitioners. After all, computing the solatium and
interest payable to each of the petitioners only requires a calculator,
and passing any supplementary award by the CALA for the purpose
is only procedural. This argument necessarily fails.”
___________
Page 14 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
15. The above order has not been stayed or reversed till date.
Placing reliance on this order, several writ petitions have been disposed
of awarding solatium and interest, including a case in N.Rajasekaran
and Another v. Union of India and Others7 and the same has not
been challenged. In yet another decision in the case of
T.Ramamurthy (died) v. Union of India8, the learned single Judge,
by a common order, set aside the order of the Project Director and
directed the authorities to pay solatium together with applicable
interest.
16. In the appeals preferred by the Project Director, NHAI in
W.A.Nos.668 and 681 of 2026, this Court, by judgment dated
29.04.2026, disposed of the appeals holding that in the light of the
order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Highways
Authority of India v. Tarsem Singh and Others, [Review Petition (Civil)
No.2528 of 2025, dated 25.03.2026], nothing survives for
adjudication. Adopting the same reasoning, this Court, by judgment
dated 22.07.2026, disposed of another appeal preferred by the Project
7
Order dated 11.12.2020 in W.P.No.18089 of 2020
8
Order dated 15.09.2025 in W.P.No.18750 of 2018 etc. batch
___________
Page 15 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
Officer, NHAI, Salem v. M.Poomalai and Another in W.A.No.2105 of
2026.
17. While the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh-III
(supra) after considering the finality and delay, authoritatively held
that the claim of landowners which were concluded prior to
28.03.2008, without any further appeal, writ petition, special leave
petition, etc., are not entitled to claim solatium and interest, it was
made clear that in cases where compensation claims were pending
before any prescribed forum on or after that cut-off date i.e.,
28.03.2008, they shall be entitled to solatium and interest. Further,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court also made it clear that even if a claim was
alive but the demand for solatium and interest was made after
28.03.2008, no interest shall be payable for the period of delay and
landowner will be eligible for interest only from the date when the
claim was made.
18. The lands were acquired in the year 2008 and the award was
passed in the year 2012. The learned Principal District Judge,
Tiruvannamalai, in the order passed on 10.11.2020, in a petition filed
under under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,
___________
Page 16 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
directed to pay solatium and interest in accordance with the Hon’ble
Supreme Court’s judgment in Tarsem Singh-I (supra). The revised
arbitral award was issued only on 31.05.2021, where the solatium and
interest were not awarded. Since the claim of compensation was
admittedly pending after the cut-off date fixed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the appellants claim for solatium and interest cannot
be rejected solely on the ground that the award was not put to
challenge.
19. The payment of solatium and interest is applicable to the
land acquired by the NHAI as the claim clearly falls within the
directions set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh-III
(supra), and the appellants can directly make a claim to the competent
authority, which shall calculate 30% solatium with applicable interest
and settle the benefits. In such circumstances, the rejection of the
appellants claim solely on the ground that the award was not
challenged cannot be sustained, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh-III (supra). Therefore, the order
passed in the writ petition requires interference and is, accordingly, set
aside.
___________
Page 17 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
20. In view of the above, the writ appeals stand allowed and
appellants are permitted to make a representation before the
competent authority/first respondent and the Project Director, NHAI/
third respondent, within a period of four weeks from today, seeking
payment of solatium and applicable interest as per the award. On
receipt of such representation, the first and third respondents are
directed to grant solatium at the rate of 30% for the land acquired,
together with applicable interest as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Tarsem Singh-III (supra), within a period of six weeks
thereafter.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
07.08.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sasi/gya
___________
Page 18 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
To:
1. The Competent Authority
The Special District Revenue Officer (LA),
National Highways 66, Vellore.
2. The Arbitrator/District Collector
Tiruvannamalai.
3. The Project Director
National Highways Authority of India,
Project Implementation Unit, No.26,
First Floor, VGP Nagar, Villupuram.
___________
Page 19 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos.1064 of 2026 etc.
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
sasi/gya
W.A.Nos.1064 and 1170 of 2026
07.08.2026
___________
Page 20 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
