( 1 ) IN these writ petitions the petitioners have sought for a declaration declaring that the provisions of the National highway Act, 1956 (Amendment) (Act No. 16/1997] (hereinafter referred to as 'the highways Act') are unconstitutional and for quashing of the notifications dated 2-2-1999 and 15-9-1999 issued under S. 3-A (l) and 3-D of the Highways Act.

( 2 ) THOUGH the petitioners have challenged all the provisions of the Act No. 16/ 1997, have confined their argument only insofar as it relates to exclusion of the application of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the' LA Act' ).

( 3 ) SRI Kothavale, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Parliament has no power, to enact a law called highways Act, for the purpose of acquisition of land, which is diametrically opposed to the LA Act. In support of his contention he has referred to the provisions of the Act, with reference to the LA Act and submits that the provisions introduced by way of an amendment by Act. No. 16/1997 are to be declared as unconstitutional. Section 3-A of the Highways Act is similar to S. 4 (1) of the la Act. Similarly, S. 3-C is similar to S. 5a of the LA Act. Section 3-D of the Highways act is similar to S. 6 (1) of the LA Act "and S. 3-E is similar to S. 16 of the Act. Sectibn 3-G is similar to S. 23 of the LA Act. Section 3-J specifically excludes the application of the land acquisition Act for the purpose of determining the compensation in respect of the lands acquired under the Highways Act.

( 4 ) THE Union of India, in its statement of objections has stated that the object of the amendment Act is to remove the inordinate delay in acquisition of lands which toas been one of the bottlenecks in the fast implementation of the National Highways Project, having faced inordinate delay and increase in the cost due to the iong process of land acquisition under the LA Act.

( 5 ) SINCE the provisions referrd to above from S. 3-A to S. 3-E of the Highways Act are similar to the provisions of the LA Act, I find no reason to consider the contentions challenging the abovesaid provisions of the act, since the petitioners confined their arguments only insofar as S. 3-J of the Highways Act.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel submits that under S. 3-A of the Highways Act, land is proposed to be acquired for a public purpose if it is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national high way or part thereof, by a notification. Under S. 3-D of the Highways Act, on the report submitted by the competent authority the Central Government shall declare by notification in the official gazette that the land shall be required for the purpose or the purposes mentioned in S. 3-A of the Highways Act. Prior to this Act, No. 16/ 1997, the Central Govt. used to acquire the land for the purpose referred to under S. 3-A of the Highways Apt, under the provisions of the LA Act. But in view of the urgency and to overcome the inordinate delay in acquisition of land, the Union of India, by act No. 16/1997, introduced certain amendments for the purpose of acquisition of land.

( 7 ) IF the land is acquired under the LA act, the land owner is entitled for additional market value under S. 23 (1-A) and solatium under S. 23 (2) of the L. A. Act. In addition the land owner is also entitled for interest on the amount awarded at 9% per annum from the date of taking possession till the date of payment arid in the event the said amount is not paid within one year at 15% interest. Whereas under the provisions of the Highways Act, no such benefit is provided to the land owner who loses his land. Therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioners denial of additional market value, solatium and interest as provided under LA act, results in discrimination between a land owner who is deprived of the land under the Highways Act and the person who is deprived of his land under the LA Act.

( 8 ) THE learned a