Sections denying solatium and interest to landholders under the National Highways Act are unconstitutional; landowners are entitled to these benefits as per recent Supreme Court ruling.

JUDGMENT :

THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL

1. By means of the present petition, the petitioners (35 in number) are seeking the following reliefs:-

“9.1 Be pleased to declare and hold that Sections 3G(5) and 3G(6) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956 as being unconstitutional and ultra vires to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

9.2 Be pleased to quash and set aside the award dated 15.02.2011 (Annexure-P/1), award dated 15.02.2012 (Annexure-P/2) and the supplementary award dated 03.07.2012 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Vyara to the extent it does not grant solatium and interest amount to petitioners and further be pleased to direct the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Vyara to grant solatium and interest amount to petitioners in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304;

9.3 Be pleased to direct the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Vyara to grant solatium and interest amount to petitioners in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304;

9.4 Be pleased to dispense with the certified copies of the award dated 15.02.2011 (Annexure-P/1), award dated 15.02.2012 (Annexure-P/2) and the supplementary award dated 03.07.2012 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Vyara;

9.5 Pending hearing, admission and final disposal of this Petition be pleased to stay the operation, effect and implementation of Sections 3G(5) and 3G(6) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956;

9.6 Costs of this Petition.”

2. At the outset, we may note that the proceedings of acquisition of the lands in question under the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956, has been concluded with the making of the awards, as per own case of the petitioners herein, in the year 2011 and 2012. The challenge to the constitutionality of Sections 3G(5) and 3G(6) by the petitioners landholders on various grounds raised in the writ petition, seem to be academic as there is no averment in the writ petition as to how these provisions would prejudice the petitioners herein. The writ petition is completely silent as to whether the petitioners have taken recourse to Section 3G(5), to challenge the award passed by the competent authority, approaching the arbitrator.

3. The assertions in the writ petition are to the effect that notices under Section 3(e) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956 were received by the petitioners after the awards were made in the year 2011 – 2012 directing them to handover the possession of their lands and asking them to collect the compensation amount. There is no disclosure as to when the petitioners have received compensation under the award declared in the year 2011 – 2012 and when the possession of the lands in question had been taken. In fact, the entire writ petition has been drafted on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh , [(2019) 9 SCC 304] dated 19.09.2019, wherein while considering the challenge to the 1997 Amendment Act, Section 3(j) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT introduced by 1997 Amendment, has been declared as unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of Indi