Himachal HC orders 7.5% interest on delayed NH-72 land compensation

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ordered the Union of India and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to pay 7.5% annual interest on compensation delayed for land acquired for the NH-72 Paonta Sahib–Ballupur bypass in Sirmaur. The decision concerns two landowners and is case-specific: it does not announce a new toll, FASTag or route charge for motorists.

Key takeaways

The dispute involved land at Mohal Bhuppur-II in Paonta Sahib tehsil, acquired for widening and four-laning the NH-72 bypass.
The competent authority’s award was dated 14 February 2022, while the compensation was deposited on 16 February 2023 — a delay of 367 days, according to UNI’s report of the judgment.
The court directed 7.5% per annum interest on the amount payable to the petitioners and gave the authorities two weeks to deposit the interest with the competent authority.
If the payment is not made within that period, the interest rate rises to 18% per annum from the order date until actual payment, The News Mill reported.

What the court ordered

UNI reported on 8 October 2026 that Justice Sandeep Sharma allowed a petition filed by Deepak Bareja and another landowner. The petitioners’ compensation under Award No. 3/2022 was reported as ₹3,78,76,160 in total, or ₹1,89,38,080 each. UNI also reported that the wider compensation amount for the acquired land was ₹43.27 crore, deposited with the competent authority on 16 February 2023, 367 days after the award.

Item	Reported detail
Project	NH-72 Paonta Sahib–Ballupur bypass, widening and four-laning
Petitioners’ award	₹3,78,76,160 in total; ₹1,89,38,080 each
Delay period	367 days, from 14 February 2022 to 16 February 2023
Interest directed	7.5% per annum on the petitioners’ payable share
Missed deadline	18% per annum from the order date until payment

The News Mill, in a report dated 8 October 2026, said the court directed the authorities to calculate and pay the interest within two weeks. It said the higher 18% rate would apply if the direction was not followed. The two reports differ on the decision date: UNI described the judgment as delivered on 5 October, while The News Mill described the directive as issued on 8 October. Both reports agree on the 367-day delay, the 7.5% direction and the two-week compliance window.

Why the delay became the central issue

The authorities argued that the award had been challenged in arbitration and that the landowners’ delay in handing over possession had affected construction costs and the highway project. The court rejected the argument that a possession dispute could remove the obligation to pay interest for the period when there was no stay against the award, according to both reports.

The court’s reasoning turned on the National Highways Act, 1956. Section 3D provides for land acquired under the Act to vest in the Central Government after the acquisition declaration. Section 3H requires the compensation determined under Section 3G to be deposited with the competent authority before possession is taken, after which the authority is to pay the people entitled to the amount. The official India Code text of the Act sets out those provisions.

That distinction matters for highway projects because construction, land possession and compensation payment are connected but not interchangeable steps. In this case, the court treated the delayed deposit as a compensable period even though the authorities referred to arbitration and possession-related issues.

What it means for drivers and transport operators

There is no reported change in toll rates, FASTag rules or fuel prices arising from this order. Drivers travelling through Himachal Pradesh should not treat the judgment as a new user-fee notification. It is an order about compensation owed in one land-acquisition dispute.

The practical road-use question is whether work on the Paonta Sahib–Ballupur corridor produces any local diversion, lane restriction or traffic advisory. The reports used for this article do not announce a new closure or diversion. Before a journey, commuters can check the road-trip planner and allow time for conditions that may change around active highway works.

For a trip that uses tolled roads, a toll charge calculator can help separate the published user fee from other travel costs. That distinction is useful here: a court-ordered interest payment to landowners is not a toll charged to passing vehicles.

Fleet operators and regular travellers can also use a fuel-cost calculator to model the effect of a longer route if an official diversion is announced later. Any such calculation should use the distance and fuel rate shown for the specific journey; this judgment itself does not provide a new distance, delay or fuel-price figure.

What to watch next

The immediate checkpoint is compliance with the two-week direction to deposit the interest with the competent authority. If that does not happen, the reported 18% per annum rate applies from the order date until payment. The court’s order may also be watched for any further application connected with execution or any appeal, but the reports reviewed here do not announce a new stay.

For the wider highway programme, the takeaway is narrower than a nationwide policy change: the case reinforces that delays in depositing awarded compensation can create an additional cost for the authorities responsible for acquisition. Motorists will see a direct effect only if a separate, officially issued traffic, toll or construction notice changes how the corridor is used.