JUDGMENT : PARESH UPADHYAY, J. 1. All these appeals arise from separate but identical orders passed by learned Single Judge on separate writ petitions, the details of which are noted hereunder:- Writ Appeal Writ Petition Date of Order 2426/2021 18312/2020 12.12.2020 2475/2021 18234/2020 12.12.2020 2476/2021 17994/2020 11.12.2020 2642/2021 18644/2020 14.12.2020 2657/2021 18089/2020 11.12.2020 2814/2021 18325/2020 12.12.2020 2. The grievance of the writ petitioners was pertaining to their entitlements of solatium, interest and additional interest in line with the judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh and others reported in 2019 (9) SCC 304 . After taking note of the said decision of the Supreme Court of India, including declaration qua Section 3J of National Highways Act, 1956 and subsequent orders of this Court, learned Single Judge relegated the writ petitioners to make fresh representation claiming those entitlements with the further direction to the concerned District Collector to inquire into it, after hearing all the stake holders and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It is these orders, which are under challenge in this group of appeals. 3. Heard learned advocates. 4. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant authorities has submitted that the writ petitioners were not entitled to what is claimed by them. It is further submitted that the closed cases could not have been permitted to be re-opened and to that extent the impugned orders need to be interfered with. It is noted that learned advocate for the appellants has extensively taken this Court through the pleadings and number of decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court in support of his contentions. It is submitted that these appeals be entertained. It is noted that learned advocate for the appellants has referred to various authorities, but since relevant binding authorities are already referred to by learned Single Judge and are also being noted by us in this order, other authorities as relied by learned advocate for the appellants, not being relevant, are not referred to here. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate for the original writ petitioners has submitted that once the Supreme Court has declared Section 3J of the Act as unconstitutional, it is the judgment in rem and can not be said to be qua the parties before the Court. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate for the original writ petitioners has submitted that once the Supreme Court has declared Section 3J of the Act as unconstitutional, it is the judgment in rem and can not be said to be qua the parties before the Court. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge by the impugned orders has directed the State Authorities to take appropriate decision in accordance with law and the State should not be aggrieved by it. It is further submitted that on the face of the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra), the citizen should not be even expected to come to Court and that relief should be granted by the State Authorities themselves, which they did not and under these circumstances when these directions are given, the same may not be interfered with. Attention of the Court is also invited to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gandhimathi vs. District Collector and others in W.A.(MD) No.1680 of 2018 reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 26900 and dismissal of S.L.P. arising therefrom being S.L.P.(C)No.3637 of 2021 (converted from S.L.P.(C) Diary No. 13577 of 2020). It is submitted that these appeals be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds that the impugned orders, as noted above, only direct the concerned District Collector(s) to inquire into the grievance of the writ petitioners pertaining to their entitlements of solatium, interest and additional interest in line with the judgement of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) and pass appropriate order, after hearing all the stake holders. Such an order, by no stretch of imagination can be said to be erroneous in any manner, much less any error apparent on the face of record, which may call for any interference in intra-court appeals. These appeals therefore need to be dismissed. 7. It is also required to be noted that the Division Bench of this Court had, in the case of Gandhimathi (supra) gone further inter alia observing that the citizen should not be driven to the authorities but the National Highways Authority should voluntarily come forward to compute the solatium and interest and settle the same. 7. It is also required to be noted that the Division Bench of this Court had, in the case of Gandhimathi (supra) gone further inter alia observing that the citizen should not be driven to the authorities but the National Highways Authority should voluntarily come forward to compute the solatium and interest and settle the same. The Bench ultimately gave direction to the National Highways Authorities to disburse the solatium and interest in accordance with law. Even the challenge to the said order is also dismissed as evident from the order of the Supreme Court of India dated 24.10.2019 recorded on S.L.P.(c)No.3637 of 2021 (converted from S.L.P.(C) Diary No. 13577 of 2020). 8. On conjoint consideration of the above, we arrive at the conclusion that we are bound by the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court (which is referred above), with which we do not have any difference of opinion, coupled with the fact that even challenge thereto is rejected by the Supreme Court. It is over and above, the conclusion at which we have independently arrived at that once the law is declared by the Supreme Court, citizen should not be asked to approach the authorities or the Courts. 9. For the reasons recorded above, all these appeals need to be dismissed. At this stage, reference need to be made to various authorities referred to by learned advocate for the appellant authorities. We find that the relevant binding authorities are already referred to by learned Single Judge and also in this order above. Other authorities not being relevant are not discussed while recording this order. 10. For the above reasons, all these appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.