LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/union-of-india-anr-vs-tarsem-singh-ors-20250204/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Union of India & Anr. vs Tarsem Singh & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
4 February 2025
Case No.
Miscellaneous Application No. 1773 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 7064 of 2019
Result
Dismissed
Bench
Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan
Citation
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 376 : 2025 INSC 146
Acts & Sections
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 National Highways Act, 1956 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency… Constitution
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 2 S.C.R. 376 : 2025 INSC 146
Issue for consideration
Whether the judgment in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh & Ors. is applicable prospectively or extends retrospectively.
Headnote

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – National Highways Act, 1956 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) seeks clarification regarding the judgment titled Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh & Ors to the extent that the aforementioned judgment is to be applied prospectively, thereby precluding the reopening of cases where land acquisition proceedings have already been completed and the determination of compensation had also attained finality:

Read the full headnote (1 more paragraph)

Held: The prayer in the instant Application expressly seeks clarification that the decision in Tarsem Singh should be deemed to operate prospectively only – However, in considered view of this Court, granting such a clarification would effectively nullify the very relief that Tarsem Singh intended to provide, as the prospective operation of it would restore the state of affairs to the same position as it was before the decision was rendered – The broader purpose behind Tarsem Singh was to resolve and put quietus upon the quagmire created by s.3J of the NHAI Act, which led to the unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals – The impact of s.3J was short-lived, owing to the applicability of the 2013 Act upon the NHAI Act from the date of 01.01.2015 – As a result, two classes of landowners emerged, devoid of any intelligible differentia: those whose lands were acquired by the NHAI between 1997 and 2015, and those whose lands were acquired otherwise – This must be viewed in the light of the principle that when a provision is declared unconstitutional, any continued disparity strikes at the core of Article 14 and must be rectified, particularly when such disparity affects only a select group – To illustrate, rendering the decision in Tarsem Singh as prospective would create a situation where a landowner whose land was acquired on 31.12.2014 would be denied the benefit of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’, whereas a landowner whose land was acquired the very next day, 01.01.2015-the date on which the ordinance was promulgated, to read the 2013 Act into the NHAI Act, would be entitled to these statutory benefits – No merit in the contentions raised by the applicant – Principles established in Tarsem Singh regarding the beneficial nature of granting ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ while emphasising the need to avoid creating unjust classifications lacking intelligible differentia are reaffirmed – Consequently, the present Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. [Paras 17, 18, 19, 25]

Keywords: Land Acquisition · Solatium · Interest · Intelligible differentia · Article 14 of Constitution · Section 3J of National Highways Act, 1956 · Determination of compensation · Prospectively · Retrospectively

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Order Surya Kant, J. 1. The instant Miscellaneous Application, filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) through its Project Director, seeks clarification regarding the judgment dated 19.09.2019, passed in Civil Appeal No. 7064 of 2019, titled Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh & Ors,1 to the extent that the aforementioned judgment is to be applied prospectively, thereby precluding the reopening of cases where land acquisition proceedings have already been completed and the determination of compensation had also attained finality. 2. This Miscellaneous Application is tagge
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →