Manav Bhanot v. National Highway Authority of India
Background
The appellant's land was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, with the Competent Authority determining compensation on 11.07.2014. He received part payment, and the disputed quantum went to arbitration, which issued an award in 2016 (later challenged under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act). The core dispute before the Supreme Court was whether solatium, interest and interest on solatium for this acquisition should be calculated under the older Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or the more beneficial Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which was extended to highway acquisitions only from 01.01.2015.
Decision Breakdown
Relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and its own precedents in the Tarsem Singh line of cases, the Court held that the applicable law turns on the date of the "award" (i.e., the Competent Authority's compensation determination under Section 3G of the NH Act): if that determination was made before 01.01.2015, the 1894 Act's solatium/interest rates apply even though the underlying 2013 Act had since come into force; if no determination was made by that date, the more beneficial 2013 Act applies. Since the Competent Authority here had determined compensation on 11.07.2014 (before the 01.01.2015 cut-off), the Court held the 1894 Act's rates governed the solatium and interest, rejecting the appellant's argument based on a road ministry notification about unpaid landholdings (which referred to "land holdings," not "landowners," and did not help him on the facts). The appeal was allowed only to the extent of confirming solatium, interest and interest on solatium under the 1894 Act, with the matter remanded to the Competent Authority for computation and payment.
Lesson Learnt
For land acquired under the National Highways Act, whether a landowner gets compensation benefits under the older 1894 law or the more generous 2013 law depends strictly on the date the compensation was first officially determined by the Competent Authority, not on when the dispute was later resolved by arbitration or courts.