Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019) and Its Sequels

Tarsem Singh is the equality judgment of Indian acquisition law: highway oustees denied solatium and interest because their land was taken under the National Highways Act rather than the general law were held to have been discriminated against. The 2019 decision was then defended twice, against a prospective-only plea in February 2025 and a review in March 2026, each time with the Constitution's guarantee placed above the bill. This note covers all three.

1. The Problem

The National Highways Act, 1956 acquired land on its own track, and Section 3J, inserted in 1997, declared that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall not apply to NH Act acquisitions. Read literally, it excluded the 1894 Act's solatium (Section 23(2)) and interest (Section 28): a farmer whose field went under a highway between 1997 and 2014 received bare market value, while his neighbour losing land to a canal under the general law received 30% solatium and interest. The 2015 Order aligned NH Act acquisitions with the 2013 Act from 1 January 2015, but left the 1997 to 2014 awards in the gap (Topics 88 and 106).

2. The 2019 Judgment

📖 Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (Supreme Court, 19 September 2019)

Held: The denial of solatium and interest to landowners under the NH Act was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14: the classification between owners losing land to a highway and those losing land to any other public purpose bore no rational nexus to any object, since the loss and the compulsion are identical. Section 3J was read down to the extent it excluded these benefits, and the 1894 Act's provisions on solatium and interest were held applicable to acquisitions under the NH Act. The Court noted that the 2015 Order had itself recognised the anomaly for later acquisitions, reinforcing the conclusion for the earlier ones.

3. The Sequels

Tarsem Singh II (4 February 2025): NHAI and the Union sought a declaration that the 2019 judgment should operate prospectively only, pointing to the financial burden; the Supreme Court refused, holding that the 2019 ruling corrected an unconstitutional classification and therefore applies to the affected acquisitions of the 1997 to 2015 period, the cost of a constitutional violation being no reason to perpetuate it.
The 2026 review (25 March 2026): a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan rejected NHAI's review petition, holding that a liability estimated at around 29,000 crore rupees could not justify revisiting the judgment: the constitutional guarantee of just compensation cannot be made contingent on the size of the bill.
The limits fixed: the review decision clarified what is payable, solatium, interest, and interest on solatium, not a fresh determination of market value; that compensation proceedings which had attained finality before 28 March 2008 are not reopened; and that where claims were raised after substantial delay, interest runs from the date of the claim.

4. The Principle and Its Reach

The case's principle is simple and expansive: the same compulsory taking commands the same measure of compensation, whatever statute the State chooses as its vehicle. It completes the Fourth Schedule bridge that the 2015 Order began, and it supplies the argument pressed wherever a sectoral or State statute's awards trail the general standard, the State industrial area Acts and older sectoral regimes among them (Topic 108). The sequels add a second lesson: equality's remedy is not to be diluted by its cost. For practice, every NH Act award of the gap years is now a solatium and interest claim, subject to the 2008 finality cut-off and the delay rule; for study, Tarsem Singh stands beside Sunder (2001), solatium is compensation, as the two pillars of the equality of measure.

⚠ Key point

Tarsem Singh (19 September 2019): excluding solatium and interest from NH Act acquisitions violated Article 14; Section 3J read down, the 1894 Act's solatium and interest applied. Tarsem Singh II (4 February 2025) refused prospective-only operation; the review was dismissed on 25 March 2026 (Surya Kant CJ and Bhuyan J): a 29,000-crore liability is no ground, payable are solatium, interest and interest on solatium, matters final before 28 March 2008 stay closed, and delayed claims earn interest from the claim date. Same taking, same measure.

5. Related Topics and Provisions

The National Highways interplay (Topic 106): the track in full
The 2015 Order (Topic 88): the bridge Tarsem Singh completed
Solatium (Topic 41): the component restored
The canon (Topic 116): the equality of measure line