Just compensation can't be contingent on magnitude of financial burden: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court said that the constitutional guarantee of just compensation cannot be rendered contingent upon the magnitude of the financial burden, and mere escalation in the projected liability, howsoever significant, does not constitute, per se, a valid ground for review or modification of its judgement.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan refused to reconsider the judgment in Tarsem Singh II on a claim by the National Highways Authority of India that the financial burden projected to this court in the course of arguments was based on a clerical error.

"Once a judgement or an order passed by a court in a particular case has attained finality and is not the subject matter of further challenge before a prescribed forum, a subsequent change in the judicial interpretation would not entail a reversal of such decision inter-se the parties to that case,'' the bench said.

In its judgment, the court, however, said that while, as a matter of legal principle, the landowners may be entitled to solatium and interest, they cannot be permitted to reopen old, stale claims which have been decided conclusively by a court of law.

The court had earlier dismissed NHAI’s application seeking clarification whether the judgement of September 19, 2019 passed by a coordinate bench of this court in Union of India and another Vs Tarsem Singh and others (Tarsem Singh-I) would apply prospectively.

Seeking review of the order, the NHAI said, the actual liability towards payment of solatium and interest to all landowners was not Rs 100 crore, but was in fact amounting to approximately Rs 29,000 crore.

The bench said, this court had unequivocally held that the fiscal implications of granting solatium and interest cannot override the substantive entitlement of land-losers.

"There is, consequentially, no occasion for us to reconsider our decision in Tarsem Singh-II on this ground,'' the bench said.

As a matter of caution, the bench, however, said, "We deem it appropriate to clarify that each claim for this entitlement cannot be treated in the same way. We say so for the reason that, in many cases, the landowners have chosen to approach different authorities, like the competent authority, the arbitrators, or the courts, for the grant of ‘solatium’ and ‘interest’ decades after the cases regarding the quantum of the land acquisition compensation for their lands stood closed."

The court directed all landowners whose claims in respect of the quantum and/or components of compensation for their lands acquired under the NH Act were alive on or after March 28, 2008, i.e., they were pending before one of the prescribed fora, would be entitled to seek addition of ‘interest’, ‘solatium’, and ‘interest on the solatium’ to their compensation claim.

In the cases where compensation claims are alive on the date, but the landowner has claimed ‘interest’, ‘solatium’, and ‘interest on solatium’ after March 28, 2008, no interest on both components would be payable for the period of delay. Such landowner would be entitled to ‘interest’ and ‘interest on solatium’ only from the date on which such claims were raised, the court added.

"If the claims of the landowners stood concluded prior to March 28, 2008, with no further appeal, writ petition, special leave petition, etc. then such landowners are not entitled to seek reopening, review, or modification of the said decision for the purpose of claiming ‘solatium’ or ‘interest’,'' the bench said.

The court remanded the matters to the concerned high courts with a request to recalculate the ‘interest’, ‘solatium’, and ‘interest on solatium’ payable to the landowners, strictly in accordance with the directions.