‘Reasonable Compensation’ under Section 10 of the 1947 Jhum Regulations includes Solatium and Interest in line with the 2013 Act; Concluded Awards Not Reopened

Introduction

In The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Mihin Laling (2025 INSC 1186), the Supreme Court of India resolved a long-standing tension between a special pre-constitutional regime governing “Jhum” lands in Arunachal Pradesh and the general national land acquisition framework. The controversy centered on whether compensation paid for acquisitions under Section 10 of the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation, 1947 (the 1947 Regulations) must include “solatium” and “interest” as mandated by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act), and whether concluded acquisitions could be reopened to apply these benefits.

The case arose from acquisitions notified on 17.02.2014 for the Trans-Arunachal Highway (TAH) along the Potin–Bopi (Godak) corridor. Compensation estimates issued under the 1947 Regulations did not include solatium or additional interest. After administrative representations failed, the respondents approached the High Court. The Single Judge held that compensation must align with the 2013 Act, and the Division Bench, while holding there was no repugnancy between the 1947 Regulations and the 2013 Act, affirmed the award of solatium and interest and further permitted reopening of concluded acquisitions for recomputation under the national statutes. The State appealed.

Before Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, the Supreme Court addressed three intertwined issues:

How to construe “reasonable compensation” under Section 10 of the 1947 Regulations in light of constitutional norms and subsequent legislation (the 2013 Act).
Whether the 1947 Regulations are repugnant to the national land acquisition laws under Article 254 of the Constitution.
Whether concluded acquisitions can be reopened to recompute compensation.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court held that “reasonable compensation” in Section 10 of the 1947 Regulations must be harmonized with evolving constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 300A and with the normative standards embodied in the 2013 Act. Accordingly, solatium and interest are integral components of reasonable compensation for Jhum land acquisitions.
The 1947 Regulations and the 2013 Act operate in distinct legislative spaces; there is no repugnancy. The 1947 Regulations provide a special procedural framework for Jhum lands but cannot deliver an inferior measure of compensation.
While affirming the entitlement to solatium and interest, the Court set aside the High Court’s direction to reopen all concluded acquisitions. Finality must be respected. Only pending matters must be recomputed to include solatium and interest.
The Court noticed the Balipara/Tirap/Sadiya Frontier Tract Jhum Land Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2024 (Act 11 of 2024), which prospectively clarifies that compensation under Section 10 cannot be less than what the land acquisition law in force provides, and treated it as confirmatory of its interpretive approach.
Directions issued:
- Respondents are entitled to solatium and interest according to the 2013 Act.
- Arrears of solatium and interest to be released within three months.
- State may recover these amounts from ultimate beneficiaries of the project, as per law.
- No reopening of concluded acquisitions; but all pending matters before authorities/courts to be recomputed to include solatium and interest.
- Amounts deposited pursuant to the interim order dated 03.07.2023 to be disbursed to the rightful landowners with accrued interest.

Factual and Statutory Background

The 1947 Regulations were enacted under Section 92(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 to protect tribal customary tenure in the Frontier Tracts, recognizing “Jhum” lands—lands cultivated through shifting cultivation and governed by community and individual customary rights (Section 2(b) read with Section 4). Section 10 empowers the Government to acquire Jhum land for public purpose without formal acquisition proceedings, subject to an opportunity of being heard and payment of “reasonable compensation.” Notably, relinquished land must be returned to the original holders upon refund of compensation.

By contrast, the 2013 Act replaced the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with a comprehensive scheme for fair compensation, including explicit components like market value determination, solatium, and interest. The core question was whether Section 10’s open-textured phrase “reasonable compensation” could be construed as excluding these statutory benefits.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Jurisprudential Context

The judgment does not explicitly cite particular precedents. Nevertheless, its reasoning sits squarely within established constitutional jurisprudence:

Article 300A protects property as a constitutional right—deprivation must be by authority of law and must satisfy standards of fairness and non-arbitrariness.
Article 14 forbids arbitrary, unequal treatment. Where two similarly situated landowners lose land for identical public purposes, an interpretation yielding substantially inferior compensation in one case lacks rational justification.
Interpretive canons favor reading older, special legislation in harmony with later, general legislation—especially where terms like “reasonable compensation” are capacious—so as to reflect current constitutional values and legislative policy.

Although not named in the text, this approach resonates with the Supreme Court’s broader line of cases emphasizing that:

Compensation standards must meet constitutional tests of fairness under Article 300A.
“Solatium” is recognized as the statutory response to the coercive character of expropriation under national land acquisition law.
Special laws are not automatically repugnant; they can coexist with general laws if read harmoniously and if their fields are distinct.

The Court thus deploys constitutional principles and legislative evolution rather than relying on a catalogue of case citations.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolds in five strands:

Nature and purpose of the 1947 Regulations: The Regulations form a special regime designed to preserve tribal customary tenure and to tailor acquisition processes to local realities. Section 10 accordingly simplifies procedure—no formal acquisition proceedings are required—but insists on a hearing and “reasonable compensation.”
Open-textured standard anchored to constitutional norms: “Reasonable compensation” is not a license for notional or parsimonious awards. It must align with Article 14 (equality, non-arbitrariness) and Article 300A (fairness in deprivation of property). A minimalist reading would be constitutionally suspect.
2013 Act as normative benchmark: The 2013 Act embodies Parliament’s considered view of “just recompense” for compulsory acquisition, including solatium and interest. While the 1947 regime may provide a distinct procedure, it cannot deliver an inferior measure of compensation. Exclusion of solatium and interest would perpetuate unjust inequality between similarly placed landholders across regimes.
No repugnancy; harmonious construction: The Court agrees with the High Court that the 1947 Regulations and the 2013 Act operate in different fields; the former is a special law for Jhum lands. There is, therefore, no Article 254 repugnancy. However, the elastic phrase “reasonable compensation” must be interpreted in the light of later statutory standards and constitutional values, thereby importing solatium and interest.
Finality and limits of judicial intervention: The Court declines to authorize wholesale reopening of concluded acquisitions. Respect for finality of administrative action and project certainty counsels against unsettling settled transactions. The remedy is therefore calibrated: solatium and interest are to be added for pending matters and future acquisitions; concluded awards remain undisturbed.

The 2024 Amendment—introducing a proviso to Section 10 to ensure compensation is not less than that under the prevailing land acquisition law—confirms the Court’s interpretive destination. It operates prospectively as a matter of legislative policy; the Court’s directions address the interregnum.

3. Impact and Implications

The judgment sets a clear operational template for acquisitions under the 1947 Regulations:

Mandatory components: Solatium and interest, as per the 2013 Act, are now intrinsic to “reasonable compensation” for Jhum land acquisitions.
Scope of relief: The ruling does not reopen concluded acquisitions where compensation has been finally determined, accepted, and disbursed. Only matters pending before authorities or in judicial fora must be recomputed to include solatium and interest.
Administrative practice in Arunachal Pradesh: Deputy Commissioners and acquisition authorities must:
- Continue to follow the Section 10 framework (notice/opportunity of hearing, simplified procedure).
- Compute compensation with market value as its base and add solatium and interest according to the 2013 Act.
- Document the hearing and valuation process to meet Article 14 and 300A standards of fairness and transparency.
Budgeting and cost allocation: The State may recover solatium and interest from ultimate beneficiaries (e.g., project agencies/NH authorities), reducing fiscal strain on the exchequer and aligning cost with benefit.
Legislative confirmation and future-proofing: Act 11 of 2024 prospectively codifies parity with national standards, minimizing future disputes. The Court’s ruling bridges the pre-amendment gap for pending matters.
Parity and fairness: The decision minimizes unequal treatment of landholders across legal regimes for identical public projects, advancing substantive equality and reinforcing confidence in the acquisition process.
Project certainty: By preserving finality of concluded awards, the Court avoids systemic disruption and fiscal uncertainty while still ensuring fair compensation in pending cases.

For practitioners, two cautionary notes follow:

The Court’s directions specifically speak to solatium and interest. They do not, by themselves, import the entire 2013 Act compensation architecture (such as rural multipliers or R&R entitlements) into the 1947 regime unless otherwise provided by statute or policy.
In borderline cases, whether a matter is “concluded” will turn on whether compensation has been finally determined, accepted, and disbursed. Records should be meticulously maintained to evidence finality.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Jhum land: Land cultivated through shifting cultivation under customary tribal tenure. Rights can be communal or individual, recognized by usage and local custom (Sections 2(b) and 4 of the 1947 Regulations).
Section 10 acquisition: A special, simplified process allowing acquisition for public purpose without formal proceedings under the general land acquisition law, but requiring:
- An opportunity to be heard (show cause against acquisition).
- Payment of “reasonable compensation.”
- Return of land to original holders if later relinquished by Government upon refund of compensation.
Solatium: An additional amount over and above market value to acknowledge the compulsory, involuntary nature of acquisition—recognizing intangible loss and distress. Under the 2013 Act, solatium is a mandatory component of compensation.
Interest: A financial charge meant to compensate for the time value of money due when payment of compensation is delayed; the 2013 Act prescribes statutory interest.
Article 300A (Right to property): While no longer a fundamental right, property remains a constitutional right. Deprivation must be lawful and fair; compensation must not be arbitrary.
Article 14 (Equality): Requires similar treatment of similarly situated persons and forbids arbitrary distinctions. Compensation regimes that irrationally diverge for identical public purposes may breach Article 14.
Repugnancy (Article 254): A State law is repugnant to a Union law if both occupy the same field and cannot coexist. Here, the Court accepted that the 1947 Regulations and the 2013 Act operate in distinct spheres; the former is a special regime. They can coexist through harmonious construction.
Harmonious construction: An interpretive approach that reconciles older/special legislation with later/general statutes and constitutional norms, especially where the earlier law uses broad, flexible language.
Finality of administrative action: Completed and accepted awards are not ordinarily reopened to preserve certainty and avoid disruption; courts calibrate relief to respect finality while vindicating rights in pending matters.
Prospective legislation: A new law (or amendment) generally applies going forward unless explicitly retrospective. The 2024 Amendment is prospective, but it confirms the interpretive path taken by the Court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Mihin Laling strikes a principled balance between tribal land protection, constitutional fairness, and administrative finality. It clarifies that the special acquisition framework for Jhum lands under Section 10 of the 1947 Regulations cannot be a vehicle for diluted compensation. The open-textured standard of “reasonable compensation” must be read to include solatium and interest as mandated by the 2013 Act, thereby aligning the special regime with national norms and Article 14/300A values.

At the same time, the Court avoids destabilizing settled transactions by refusing to reopen concluded awards, limiting recomputation to pending matters and future acquisitions. The 2024 legislative amendment prospectively codifies compensation parity, validating the Court’s interpretive solution and providing long-term clarity.

Key takeaways:

Solatium and interest are now judicially recognized as inherent in “reasonable compensation” under Section 10 of the 1947 Regulations.
No repugnancy exists; the special regime coexists with the national law through harmonious construction.
Concluded acquisitions stand; pending matters must be recomputed to include solatium and interest.
The State may recover these amounts from ultimate beneficiaries, aligning costs with project benefits.
The 2024 Amendment prospectively cements these principles, reducing future litigation.

In sum, the judgment advances constitutional equity in compensation for tribal land acquisitions without compromising project stability, and it offers a measured, durable framework for reconciling special land regimes with evolving national standards.