Pre-2018 land acquisition cases can’t be reopened for grant of compensation with interest: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday orally observed that pre-2018 land acquisition cases cannot be reopened for the grant of compensation with interest to the farmers whose land had been acquired under the NHAI Act.

The observation was made by a special bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan while commencing the hearing in an open court of a plea of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), seeking a review of a 2019 verdict of the top court.

The apex court, in 2019, held that the decision to grant compensation with interest to farmers whose land was acquired under the NHAI Act would apply retrospectively.

The NHAI, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, said the 2019 judgement imposed a huge financial burden (approximately Rs 32,000 crore) and should only apply prospectively.

The bench had previously rejected this, noting that denying such benefits violated Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution.

“What perhaps weighed with your lordship was that it was Rs 100 crore," Mehta said, adding that in another judgement, the top court said that no disposed of cases will be reopened.

“The cut-off date appears to be of 2008, provided claims were alive then. Pre-2018 matters cannot be reopened. Those matters which were pending in 2008 continue. If someone in the early 2020s filed an application saying they are entitled to parity on the basis of 2008, we can say yes as the solatium but not interest, like in land acquisition matters,” the CJI observed.

The bench heard the brief arguments and asked the parties to file written submissions, if any, and listed the review plea for hearing after two weeks.

On November 4 last year, the CJI-led bench had agreed to hear in open court the plea of the NHAI seeking review of its verdict.

The bench had issued a notice on the review plea and listed the matter for open court hearing on November 11, 2025.

The solicitor general had told the bench that the matter would have wide implications of around Rs 32,000 crore, and not Rs 100 crore as was stated earlier in the petition.

On February 4, 2025, the top court, while rejecting NHAI's plea, had ruled that its 2019 decision allowing the grant of compensation and interest to farmers, whose land was acquired under the NHAI Act, would apply retrospectively.

The NHAI had sought the applicability of its September 19, 2019 judgment prospectively, consequently precluding the reopening of cases where land acquisition proceedings had already been completed and the determination of compensation attained finality.

The bench had said, "We find no merit in the contentions raised by the applicant, NHAI. We reaffirm the principles established in Tarsem Singh (2019 decision) regarding the beneficial nature of granting 'solatium' and 'interest' while emphasising the need to avoid creating unjust classifications lacking intelligible differentia. Consequently, we deem it appropriate to dismiss the present miscellaneous application." The top court had said in its 2019 decision that Section 3J of the NHAI Act, by excluding the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 and consequently denying solatium and interest for lands acquired under the NHAI Act, was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

"Regardless, the prayer in the instant application expressly seeks clarification that the decision in Tarsem Singh should be deemed to operate prospectively only.

"However, in our considered view, 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 bench had said.

Referring to the 2019 decision, which held Section 3J of the NHAI Act as unconstitutional, the top court had said the broader purpose behind the Tarsem Singh verdict was to resolve and put quietus upon the quagmire created by Section 3J of the NHAI Act, which led to the unequal treatment of similarly-situated persons.

"The impact of Section 3J was short-lived, owing to the applicability of the 2013 Act upon the NHAI Act from January 1, 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," it had said.

It also said that the 2019 verdict 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 of the Constitution and must be rectified, particularly when such disparity affects only a select group.

The top court had clarified that the ultimate outcome of its 2019 decision was limited to granting solatium and interest to the aggrieved landowners whose lands were acquired by the NHAI between 1997 and 2015, and it did not, in any manner, direct the reopening of cases that had already attained finality.