NEW DELHI (February 23, 2026) — The Supreme Court on Monday orally observed that land acquisition cases finalised prior to 2018 cannot be reopened for the purpose of granting interest on compensation to farmers. A special bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, clarified that whilst solatium remains a right under the principle of parity, the payment of interest cannot be applied to cases where proceedings reached finality years before recent judicial shifts. The observation came during the commencement of an open-court hearing regarding a review petition filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
Judicial Balancing of Parity and Finality
The hearing focused on the NHAI’s challenge to a 2019 Supreme Court verdict in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, which had struck down Section 3J of the National Highways Act. That section had previously denied farmers solatium and interest, a distinction the court had found discriminatory under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that while the court previously rejected the NHAI’s plea to apply the Tarsem Singh ruling strictly prospectively, there must be a cut-off to prevent judicial chaos. “Pre-2018 matters cannot be reopened. Those matters which were pending in 2008 continue. If someone in the early 2020s filed an application saying they are entitled to parity on the basis of 2008, we can say yes as to solatium but not interest,” the Chief Justice remarked.
Financial Implications and the 32,000 Crore Rupee Burden
The NHAI, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that a blanket retrospective application of the 2019 judgment would impose an insurmountable financial burden on the public exchequer. According to reports from Business Standard and The Hindustan Times, the Solicitor General stated the potential liability is estimated at approximately 32,000 crore rupees.
The Solicitor General argued that earlier judicial impressions—which suggested a smaller impact of around 100 crore rupees—had been surpassed by a flood of new claims. He emphasized that reopening long-disposed cases would contravene the doctrine of immutability, which ensures that once a judgment attains finality, it remains unalterable.
Background and Statutory Context
The legal dispute centers on the period between 1997 and 2015, during which the National Highways Act operated without the provision for solatium (an additional 30 percent compensation) or interest on delayed payments.
- The 2019 Ruling: The Supreme Court declared the exclusion of these benefits unconstitutional, ruling that landowners under the NHAI Act should receive parity with those covered by the Land Acquisition Act of 1894.
- The NHAI Review: The authority is now seeking to limit the scope of this retrospective relief, specifically to prevent the revival of claims where land acquisition was completed and compensation was accepted without protest before 2018.
The bench has directed the parties to file written submissions and has listed the review plea for a detailed hearing in two weeks.
Sources
- The Hindustan Times: “Pre-2018 land acquisition cases can’t be reopened for grant of compensation with interest: SC” (February 23, 2026)
- Business Standard: “Pre-2018 Nhai land cases can’t be reopened for interest claims: SC” (February 23, 2026)
- Lawtext: “Solatium and Interest Entitlement – Retrospective or Prospective Application of Law” (February 15, 2026)
- Supreme Court of India: Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [(2019) 9 SCC 304]
Leave a Reply