Manav Bhanot v. NHAI (2026 INSC 973) — Pre-2015 Highway Acquisition? Your Solatium Comes From the 1894 Act, Not the 2013 Act

When a farmer's land is acquired for a national highway, one of the most important questions is which law governs their right to solatium, interest, and interest on solatium. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provides 30 per cent solatium. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 provides 100 per cent solatium. The difference is significant.

On 8 September 2026, the Supreme Court of India settled a recurring dispute in highway acquisition cases: if the Competent Authority determined compensation before 1 January 2015, the solatium and interest must be computed under the 1894 Act — not the 2013 Act — even if arbitration or litigation over the compensation continued well after that date. The case is Manav Bhanot v. National Highway Authority of India, 2026 INSC 973. The bench consisted of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

Background: Two Acts, One Cutoff Date

Land for national highways is acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act), which runs on its own faster timeline than general land acquisition.

The 2013 Act (RFCTLARR Act, 2013) came into force on 1 January 2014. However, for acquisitions under the National Highways Act, it was made applicable from a later date: 1 January 2015. This means that for highway acquisitions, if compensation was determined by the Competent Authority under Section 3G(1) of the NH Act before 1 January 2015, the 1894 Act governs solatium and interest. If compensation was determined on or after 1 January 2015, the 2013 Act applies.

The Facts of Manav Bhanot

The appellant's land was acquired under the NH Act pursuant to notifications published in 2011 and 2012. The Competent Authority determined compensation by an order dated 11 July 2014 — before the 1 January 2015 cutoff.

The landowner was dissatisfied with the compensation and the matter went to arbitration. The arbitral award was passed subsequently, after 1 January 2015. The appellant argued that since the arbitration concluded after the cutoff date, the 2013 Act's more beneficial provisions — including 100 per cent solatium — should apply.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument.

Also Check: Bohar Singh v. Sardara Singh (2026 INSC 961)

The Decisive Date: First Determination, Not the Arbitral Award

The Court held that the decisive date is the date on which the Competent Authority first determined compensation under Section 3G(1) of the NH Act — not the date of any subsequent arbitral award, court order, or payment.

In Manav Bhanot's case, compensation was first determined on 11 July 2014 — before the cutoff of 1 January 2015. That single fact determines which Act's provisions on solatium and interest apply. A later arbitral award does not shift the statutory regime governing these additional benefits.

The rule, stated plainly: if the first determination of compensation was made before 1 January 2015, the 1894 Act governs solatium, interest, and interest on solatium. If the first determination was on or after 1 January 2015, the 2013 Act governs.

What the Court Drew From Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal

The bench relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Others, which examined the interaction between the 2013 Act and ongoing acquisitions commenced under the 1894 Act. The Court drew the principle that the operative date for determining which statutory regime governs additional benefits — solatium, interest — is the date on which the initial determination of compensation was made.

If that date falls before the applicable commencement date of the 2013 Act for the relevant category of acquisition, the 1894 Act continues to govern those benefits. The fact that the landowner thereafter litigated or arbitrated and secured a higher award does not shift the regime.

What the Appellant Argued — and Why the Court Rejected It

The appellant relied on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (Tarsem Singh-II), in which the Supreme Court had rejected any distinction between a landowner whose property was acquired on December 31, 2014 and one whose property was acquired on January 1, 2015. The appellant argued that this ruling meant no distinction could be made based on the cutoff date.

The Court clarified that Tarsem Singh-II decided that solatium and interest are payable to all landowners — it did not decide that the rate or the governing Act is the same for all. The question of which Act applies to compute those benefits is separately governed by the date of the first determination. Tarsem Singh-II and this judgment operate in different planes.

Build strong legal concepts and prepare effectively with Online Judiciary Courses. Get structured learning, expert guidance, and focused practice for judiciary exams. 

The Result: Solatium at 30 Per Cent, Not 100 Per Cent

The Court allowed the appeal only to the limited extent of directing that the compensation determined by the arbitral award be supplemented with solatium, interest, and interest on solatium — but computed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. That means 30 per cent solatium, not 100 per cent under the 2013 Act. The matter was remanded to the Competent Authority for computation and disbursal.

Exam Relevance

For Civil Judge exam and APO exam aspirants, land acquisition law is a significant topic. Key points:

●       National Highways Act, 1956 — land acquisition for highways follows Section 3A to 3G process.

●       1 January 2015 is the date from which the 2013 Act was made applicable to NH Act acquisitions.

●       The decisive date is the date of the Competent Authority's first determination of compensation under Section 3G(1) — not the arbitral award date.

●       Pre-2015 determination: solatium under the 1894 Act (30%). Post-2015 determination: solatium under the 2013 Act (100%).

●       Case: Manav Bhanot v. NHAI, 2026 INSC 973, 8 September 2026. Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. What is this case about?

Manav Bhanot v. NHAI (2026 INSC 973) holds that where compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 was first determined by the Competent Authority before 1 January 2015, solatium, interest, and interest on solatium must be computed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, not the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

Q2. What is solatium in land acquisition?

Solatium is an additional amount paid to landowners to compensate for the hardship and disruption caused by compulsory acquisition. Under the 1894 Act, solatium is 30 per cent of the market value. Under the 2013 Act, it is 100 per cent — making the difference very significant.

Q3. Why does 1 January 2015 matter for highway acquisition?

The 2013 Act came into force on 1 January 2014 for general acquisitions, but it was made applicable to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 from 1 January 2015. Before that date, the 1894 Act continued to govern NH Act acquisitions. The cutoff for determining which regime applies to solatium and interest is this date.

Q4. What is the decisive date for determining which Act applies?

The date on which the Competent Authority makes the first determination of compensation under Section 3G(1) of the NH Act. A later arbitral award or court order does not change the governing Act for solatium and interest.

Q5. How does this affect landowners whose arbitration concluded after 2015?

If the Competent Authority's first determination was before 1 January 2015, the 1894 Act governs solatium and interest — even if the arbitral award came later. The date of first determination is the anchoring date, not the award date. Landowners in this position are entitled to solatium and interest but at the lower 1894 Act rates.

Q6. What is Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956?

Section 3G provides the mechanism for determining compensation for land acquired under the NH Act. Under Section 3G(1), the Competent Authority (usually a government official) makes an award determining the compensation. If the landowner is dissatisfied, they can seek arbitration under Section 3G(5). It is the Section 3G(1) determination date that is decisive for the 'which Act applies' question.

Q7. What did the Court say about Tarsem Singh-II?

The Court held that Tarsem Singh-II decided that solatium and interest are payable to all landowners — it did not decide the rate or the governing Act. Tarsem Singh-II rejected the argument that landowners whose properties were acquired just before the cutoff date should be denied solatium altogether. It is not authority for the proposition that pre-2015 acquisitions should attract 2013 Act solatium rates.

Q8. What was the final order?

The appeal was partly allowed. Solatium, interest, and interest on solatium were ordered to be paid, but computed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (30% solatium). The matter was remanded to the Competent Authority for computation and disbursal accordingly.

Q9. What is the difference between the 1894 Act and 2013 Act for landowners?

The 2013 Act provides 100 per cent solatium (vs 30 per cent under 1894), higher multiplier factors for market value, rehabilitation and resettlement benefits, and social impact assessment requirements. For a landowner, the difference between the two regimes can amount to many lakhs or crores of rupees.

Q10. Is this relevant for APO exam preparation?

Yes. Land acquisition law, the NH Act, and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 are within the APO exam syllabus for states with active highway acquisition programmes. The distinction between the 1894 Act and 2013 Act, the role of solatium, and the recent clarification from this judgment are all examinable points.

Conclusion

Manav Bhanot v. NHAI establishes a clear and simple rule: the date of the Competent Authority's first determination of compensation under the National Highways Act is the date that fixes which statutory regime governs the landowner's additional benefits. A later arbitral award, however favourable, does not pull the case into the 2013 Act's more beneficial provisions. For landowners and practitioners in highway acquisition matters, getting this date right can make a decisive difference to the compensation ultimately received.

Nitesh Sir at Aashayein Judiciary covers land acquisition law, the 2013 Act, and the NH Act as part of the APO exam and Civil Judge exam preparation. Explore our Online Judiciary Coaching, Judiciary Notes, and Mock Test series to master this and all other examination topics.