Case Overview:

Manav Bhanot v. National Highway Authority of India was pronounced from supreme cout on 08 Sept 2026 and discussed on which law should be used for the calculation of those landowners whose lands have been acquired by the government for a national highway and which law should be applicable. The main legal question was which among the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) should be used to calculate solatium, interest, and the interest on solatium. Solatium is the extra compensation provided by the government to the landowners who are not voluntarily selling their property but the government is compulsory taking it. The Court had to decide which date determines the applicable compensation regime.

Facts of the Case:

The appellant Manav Bhanot’s land was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the authority decided his compensation on 11 July 2014 before the implementation of the new 2013 Land Acquisition Act. The Appellate received the compensation but he was not satisfied with the amount that he received and wanted the compensation as the per the new 2013 act. Hence, he further went for arbitration and demanded that he should receive compensation as per the later date when the matter was decided through arbitration.

The dispute was important because the 2013 Act provides substantially more beneficial compensation protections, including enhanced solatium. Therefore, the appellate was focused on receiving compensation through the new act. Earlier, in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, the Supreme Court had struck down Section 3J of the National Highways Act as unconstitutional under Article 14 which is Equality before law because it denied highway landowners benefits available to other landowners. Later decisions clarified that solatium and interest were payable, but the present case required the Court to determine which statute controlled their calculation.

Court’s Reasoning:

The Supreme Court examined the interaction between the National Highways Act, the 1894 Act and the 2013 Act.

The Court held that the applicable compensation law is the initial determination made by the competent authority under Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act. And any of the date decided through arbitration will not be conclusive.

The Court also explained that Tarsem Singh and the later Tarsem Singh decisions established the entitlement to solatium and interest even for certain older acquisitions. They did not mean that the 2013 Act automatically governs every old acquisition. Where the competent authority’s determination was made before 1 January 2015, the benefits must be calculated under the 1894 Act. If the determination was made on or after 1 January 2015, the 2013 Act would apply.

Applying this rule, the Court noted that in the present case the competent authority made the decision of compensation pom 11 Julu 2014, which was before the implementation of the 2013 Act for compensation to the National Highway Land acquisitions and therefore the appellant received the compensation interest and solatium but that was calculated on the basis of the old act.

Decision & Conclusion:

The Supreme Court in part granted the appeal. It ordered that the compensation which had already been determined by the arbitration procedure should include solatium, interest and interest on solatium as specified in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The case was sent back to the competent authority for the calculation and payment of the amounts owed.

The judgment is important since it establishes a definite rule concerning the compensation law that should apply to acquisitions of land from the National Highway. The main issue is that it is the date on which the competent authority first makes its determination under Section 3G(1) and not the later arbitration award that decides whether the 1894 Act or the 2013 Act is to be used for calculating solatium and interest. Thus, the decision offers valuable clarity to landowners as well as to the NHAI and other authorities who are handling older acquisition cases.

This article has been researched and prepared by Diya Singla, Legal Research Intern at LegalRath.

Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications