Interplay with the National Highways Act, 1956: Tarsem Singh and the Solatium Question

India's largest acquirer works outside the 2013 Act: highway land is taken under the National Highways Act, 1956, a Fourth Schedule statute with its own fast machinery, an executive competent authority, and, until the Supreme Court intervened, no solatium at all. This note covers the NH Act's acquisition track, the 2015 alignment, and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019), the equality judgment that completed the bridge.

1. The NH Act's Track

The machinery: intention to acquire notified under Section 3A; objections to the competent authority under Section 3C; declaration under Section 3D, on which the land vests absolutely in the Central Government; the amount determined by the competent authority under Section 3G, by agreement or award; dissatisfaction going not to any court or Authority but to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government; and payment and deposit under Section 3H, a linear machine built for alignment-speed, with no SIA, no consent, and no lapse clocks.
The exclusion that caused the trouble: Section 3J declared that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall not apply to NH Act acquisitions, which the authorities read as excluding the 1894 Act's solatium and interest: highway oustees received bare market value while every neighbour acquired under the general law took 30% solatium and interest.
The arbitration wrinkle: the Central Government appoints the Section 3G arbitrator, and in NHAI v. Sayedabad Tea Co. (2019) the Supreme Court held this special appointment power excludes Section 11 of the Arbitration Act: the remedy structure stays inside the executive's appointee, with Section 34 review after, a design much criticised against the 2013 Act's judicial Authority.

2. The 2015 Alignment

As a Fourth Schedule enactment, the NH Act keeps its procedure but, by the Removal of Difficulties Order of 28 August 2015, acquisitions from 1 January 2015 carry the 2013 Act's compensation determination and R&R: the competent authority computes a First Schedule package, multiplied market value, assets, 100% solatium, the additional amounts, and the Second and Third Schedule entitlements run with it (Topics 87 and 88). That left the two-class problem: oustees of 1997 to 2014, after Section 3J's insertion but before the alignment, held awards with no solatium and no interest, worse-treated than both their 1894-era predecessors and their 2015 successors, on the same highways.

3. The Equality Judgment

📖 Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (Supreme Court, 2019)

Held: The exclusion of solatium and interest for NH Act acquisitions was discriminatory and violative of Article 14: landowners cannot receive different compensation for the same compulsory taking merely because the acquiring statute differs. Section 3J was read down, and the provisions of the 1894 Act relating to solatium and interest were held applicable to National Highways acquisitions of the post-1997, pre-2015 era, with the benefit extended to concluded matters as the judgment and its follow-up orders arranged. The decision completes the compensation bridge: 1894 standards before 2015, 2013 standards after, and no solatium-free hole between.

The follow-up discipline: later clarifying orders confined the benefit to solatium and interest, not wholesale re-determination of market value, and settled the administrative machinery for supplementary payments, the practical question in every pending highway matter of that era.
The doctrinal export: Tarsem Singh's equality logic, same taking, same measure, is the argument pressed wherever a Fourth Schedule statute's awards trail the 2013 standards, and the reasoning behind the series' refrain that the Schedule exempts machinery, never, in the end, the measure.

4. Working an NH Acquisition

Stage	Provision	The practice point
Notification and objections	Sections 3A and 3C	The one hearing; no SIA or consent, so colourability and alignment challenges go straight to the writ court
Declaration and vesting	Section 3D	Vesting on declaration: possession follows the Section 3E machinery, not the 2013 Act's gates
The amount	Section 3G, with the 2015 Order	First Schedule computation from 1 January 2015; Tarsem Singh solatium and interest for the 1997 to 2014 era
The challenge	Arbitration under 3G, then Section 34	Government-appointed arbitrator (Sayedabad Tea); valuation discipline argued from the 2013 principles
Payment	Section 3H	Deposit and apportionment before the competent authority; interest consequences on delay

⚠ Key point

The NH Act track: 3A notification → 3C objections → 3D declaration and vesting → 3G amount by the competent authority → Government-appointed arbitrator (Sayedabad Tea) → 3H payment, with no SIA, consent or lapse clocks. Money: 2013-standard compensation and R&R from 1 January 2015 (the 2015 Order), and for the 1997 to 2014 awards, Tarsem Singh (2019) read down Section 3J on Article 14 grounds: solatium and interest payable, the benefit confined by follow-up orders to those components. Procedure sectoral, measure universal.

5. Related Topics and Provisions

The Fourth Schedule and the 2015 Order (Topics 87 and 88): the frame
Tarsem Singh as landmark (Topic 120): the case note
Solatium (Topic 41): what was denied and restored
The Railways and Metro interplay (Topic 107): the same pattern on rails