JUDGMENT : Paresh Upadhyay, J. (Prayer in W.A.No.2442 of 2021: Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 08.12.2020 made in W.P.No.17309 of 2020. W.A.No.2469 of 2021: Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 08.12.2020 made in W.P.No.17311 of 2020. W.A.No.2458 of 2021: Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 08.12.2020 made in W.P.No.17302 of 2020. W.A.No.2447 of 2021: Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 08.12.2020 made in W.P.No.17306 of 2020. W.A.No.2454 of 2021: Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 08.12.2020 made in W.P.No.17308 of 2020.) 1. All these appeals arise from separate but identical orders passed by learned Single Judge, all dated 08.12.2020, on separate writ petitions, the details of which are noted hereunder:- Writ Appeal Writ Petition Date of Order 2442/2021 17309/2020 08.12.2020 2469/2021 17311/2020 08.12.2020 2447/2021 17306/2020 08.12.2020 2454/2021 17308/2020 08.12.2020 2258/2021 17302/2020 08.12.2020 2. The grievance of the writ petitioners was pertaining to their entitlements of solatium, interest and additional interest in line with the judgment 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 and subsequent orders of this Court, learned Single Judge relegated the petitioner 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 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. Specific grievance was made on behalf of the appellants that the writ petitioners are fence sitters, they had suppressed material fact in the writ petition and their petitions were required to be dismissed. It is noted that learned advocate for the appellants has extensively taken this Court through the pleadings. Specific grievance was made on behalf of the appellants that the writ petitioners are fence sitters, they had suppressed material fact in the writ petition and their petitions were required to be dismissed. It is noted that learned advocate for the appellants has extensively taken this Court through the pleadings. It is submitted that these appeals be entertained. Specific grievance was made on behalf of the appellants that the writ petitioners are fence sitters, they had suppressed material fact in the writ petition and their petitions were required to be dismissed. It is noted that learned advocate for the appellants has extensively taken this Court through the pleadings. It is submitted that these appeals be entertained. It is noted that learned advocate for the appellants has referred to various authorities :- (1) Chakrapani & Ors v. Union of India reported in 2011 (7) MLJ 858 , (2) Gurpreet Singh v Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 457, (3) Sunita Mehra v. Union of India reported in (2019) 17 SCC 672, (4) Union of India v. Tarsem Singh reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304 , (5) Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2010) 2 SCC 14, (6) Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 1962 SCR (1) 574, (7) Prakash Singh v. Union of India and others reported in 2016 (231) DLT 641 , (8) Bhailal Bhai & others v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1964 SCR (6) 261, (9) Tilokchand Motichand and others v. H.B.Munshi and another reported in 1980 AIR 898, (10) Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India reported in 1997 (5) SCC 536 , (11) State of Maharashtra v. Digambar reported in (1995) 4 SCC 683 , (12) Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd reported in (1985) 1 SCC 260 , (13) Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. Reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85 , (14) Genpact India Pvt Ltd., v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2019) 16 SCC 667, (15) The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax vs. M/s.Commercial Steel Ltd., reported in 2021 (1) CTC 844 , (16) Hasmukhraj V Nada v. Commissioner of Income Tax and others reported in SCA/14055/2011 Guj HC (DB), (17) Phool Singh v. National Highways Authority of India and others made in CWP No.29431 of 2017 P&H High Court, (18) Sukhram v. National Highways Authority of India and others in CWP No.6406 of 2018, (19) Sungammal v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1965 SC 1740 , (20) K.Ayyavu v. The District Collector cum Sole Arbitrator and others made in W.A.No.4309 of 2019, (21) Sadasivam v. The District Collector cum Sole Arbitrator and Others made in W.P.No.9445 of 2020, (22) Assistant Commissioner (Ct) Ltu, Kakinada & Others v. M/s.Galxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited reported in 2020 (4) MLJ 652 , (23) State of Uttaranchal v. Shivcharan Singh Bhandari reported in (2013) 12 SCC 179 , (24) Union of India v. Chaman Rana reported in (2010) 2 SCC 59 , (25) Chairman/Managing Director, UPPC Ltd. v. Ram Gopal made in C.A.No.852 of 2018 dated 30.01.2020 and (26) The Executive Engineer, Nimna Dudhna Project v. The State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2020 SC 717 , 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 referred but not discussed in the order. 5. On the other hand, learned 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. Responding to the allegations against the petitioners, it is submitted that it is the Appellant authorities themselves who should be held guilty of suppressing material fact from the Court below, since it was their case before the Collector that their S.L.P. against the decision of this Court in the case of T.Chakkarapani vs. Union of India was pending before the Supreme Court and therefore though, what is declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) was already the law so far the State of Tamil Nadu, the same was objected to be followed and when the said S.L.P was dismissed vide order dated 21 July 2016, it was incumbent upon the State Authorities to put it to the notice of the Court below, which they had not. It is submitted that this factor should not only not weigh against the writ petitioners but should weigh against the appellant authorities. It is submitted that these appeals be dismissed. 6. It is submitted that this factor should not only not weigh against the writ petitioners but should weigh against the appellant authorities. 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 petitioners pertaining to their entitlements of solatium, interest and additional interest in line with the judgment 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. 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 the authorities referred to by learned advocate for the appellant authorities. 9. For the reasons recorded above, all these appeals need to be dismissed. At this stage, reference need to be made to the 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. At this stage, reference also needs to be made to the further submission on behalf of the appellant authorities that the writ petitioners were guilty of suppression of material facts. We find that, the record shows otherwise. It is the appellant authorities who should be held guilty of suppressing material fact from the Court below. We record this for the reason that, learned advocate for the original writ petitioner is right in his contention that it was the case of the authorities themselves before the Collector that their S.L.P. against the decision of this Court in the case of T.Chakkarapani vs. Union of India was pending before the Supreme Court and therefore though, what is declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) was already the law so far the State of Tamil Nadu, the same was objected to be followed and when the said S.L.P was dismissed on 21 July 2016(Civil Appeals No(s).129-159 of 2014), it was incumbent upon the State Authorities to put it to the notice of the Court below where the proceedings were pending at the relevant time, which they had not. Since we have already held that these appeals need to be dismissed on merits, this additional factor against the appellant authorities is not of much consequence. 10. For the above reasons, all these appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.