IMPORTANT POINT
In view of Section 3-J of the National Highways Act, 1956, the landowners have conceded that they are not entitled to 30% solatium and other items of compensation. Having regard to the judgments stated supra, while confirming the liberty, granted by the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, to submit a revised calculation, after the outcome of the legal proceedings stated supra, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in a batch of CMA Nos.650, 651680 of 2013, dated 30.08.2013, has partly allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Madurai and reduced the compensation amount at Rs.12,000/-per Cent and added 10% statutory solatium, and on the amount, further added 9% interest from the date of taking possession, till the date of deposit.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Challenge in this appeal is against the judgment dated 18.09.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 23194 of 2007 by which the writ court confirmed the constitutional validity of Sections 3-G and 3-J of the National Highways Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short).

2. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, inviting the attention of this Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [(2019) 9 SCC 304=2019 (4) KLT 739 (SC)], Sri. Tek Chand, learned Government Pleader submitted that Section 3-J of the Act has been struck down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore, State is not pressing this appeal.

3. Following the aforesaid decision, findings in the impugned judgment, insofar as, not interfering with Section 3-J of the Act, is not correct. However, learned single Judge has directed to pay solatium and interest to the first respondent/writ petitioner. Challenging the said findings, this appeal is preferred by the State.

4. Section 3-J reads thus:

“3-J. Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 not to apply--Nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply to an acquisition under this Act.”

5. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Tarsem Singh (supra), striking down Section 3-J, the grounds raised in the appeal do not merit consideration. Unless Section 3-G of the Act is available under the Act, compensation cannot be determined and paid. Section 3-G of the Act, which deals with determination of amount payable as compensation, reads thus:

“[3-G. Determination of amount payable as compensation.—

(1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority.

(2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent. of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land.

(3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired.

(4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land.

(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.

(6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act.

(7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration—

(a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3A;

(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land;

(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings;

(d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change.”

6. In Abbas T. Vagh and Ors. v. The Competent