IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.Ravi, J.
Sudheer Kumar V.V., S/O. Late Achuthan Vydier – Petitioner
Versus
National Highways Authority Of India (Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways) And Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C)Nos.5944, 7775, 7978, 8939, 12030, 17221 of 2021, W.P.(C)Nos. 2259, 14056, 15009, 19257, 22865, 29886, 30126, 30766, 31730, 32197, 34845, 35020, 36709, 37012, 38168, 39952, 41889 of 2022
Decided On : 21-03-2024
Key Points: - The judgment holds that Section 94 right applies to NH Act acquisitions and allows demand for full acquisition and includes rehabilitation aspects (!) (!) (!) . - It states that compensation under the 2013 Act includes rehabilitation and resettlement in addition to market value, applicable to NH Act cases via 105(3) notification (!) (!) (!) . - It clarifies that the right under Section 94 is a substantive right linked to ownership and not merely a procedural remedy, and must be balanced with public interest in NH Act contexts (!) (!) (!) . - The Court directs considering requests to acquire entire building/land and provide compensation under the 2013 Act read with NH Act provisions, within four months (!) (!) (!) . - It recognizes that Section 28 of the 2013 Act mirrors Section 94 rights and that such rights can be invoked for severance damages even if not timely raised, aligning with Section 23/28 principles (!) (!) . - It confirms that the 2013 Act provisions relevant to compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement apply notwithstanding the NH Act’s procedural differences, subject to the Fourth Schedule notifications (!) (!) (!) . - It emphasizes that compensation is not limited to market value but includes additional components to make lands/assets whole, and that the right to demand full acquisition is part of ownership rights (!) (!) (!) . - It acknowledges the public interest/salus populi considerations but rejects using salus populi to deny statutory rights to compensation and full acquisition where applicable (!) (!) . - It establishes writ petitions are maintainable to challenge applicability and interpretation of Section 94 to NH Act acquisitions (!) . - It orders completion of certain proceedings consistent with Nagaraju and 2013 Act provisions within four months (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
“Property is a human right because it is a human’s right.”
Walter Barnes in “Third World Ways in Cambridge
USA”, The Wall Street Journal, December 1983
The writ petitioners in these cases are persons whose land and buildings had been acquired for the purpose of widening the National Highway under the provisions of the National Highways Act. They are aggrieved since part of their properties and buildings are acquired, leaving out small strips of land or buildings that are unusable. In some cases, awards have been passed and in some, awards are yet to be passed. The common question that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is whether Section 94 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('the 2013 Act' for short) will apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act.
History
2. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 ('the 1894 Act' for short) is a pre-constitutional law that provided for the acquisition of land for public purposes and for companies. The Act provides for payment of compensation to persons who lost their lands due to compulsory acquisition. The exercise of the power of eminent domain to expropriate was statutorily recognised by the enactment. Several amendments have been effected to the 1894 Act to bring it in conformity with the requirement of the Constitution of India. The Legislature thought it fit to exclude the operation of the 1894 Act when it came to acquisition for certain specific purposes for which separate law was enacted, with provisions for acquisition. The National Highways Act, 1956 ('the NH Act' for short), which came into force in 1956, did not originally contain provisions for land acquisition. Acquisition for the purpose of National Highways was made under the 1894 Act, and the owners were given in addition to the market value, solatium as well as interest under the provisions of the said Act. By an amendment brought about by the National Highways Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997, provisions were introduced into the NH Act for empowering acquisition for the purpose of development of highways. Section 49 of the 1894 Act recognised a right for the landowners to express their desire that the whole of a house, manufactory, or building may be acquired instead of a part thereof. The 1997 amendment of the NH Act did not contain a similar provision that safeguards the above-said right of the landowner. Instead, what was available was Section 3-G(7), which deals with the determination of the amount of compensation. The only provision which was almost akin to Section 49 of the 1894 Act was Section 3-G(7) (b) and (c), which identified the damage sustained by a reason of severing of the land from other land and the damage sustained at the time of taking possession by the reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting other immovable property of the land owner or his earnings, as matters, that have to be taken into account while determining compensation.
3. The entire concept behind acquisition underwent a sea change when the 2013 Act was brought into force. The 2013 Act, which was enacted 120 years after the earlier enactment, has attempted to replace the expropriation legislation by providing for a humane, participative, informed, and transparent process for land acquisition, as the preamble to the new Act suggests. The preamble says that the intention is to acquire land with the least disturbance to the owners and other affected families, provide just and fair compensation to the affected persons, make adequate provisions for their rehabilitation and resettlement, and ensure that the cumulative outcome of the compulsory acquisition should be that the affected persons become partners in development leading to an improvement in their post-acquisition social and economic status. The 2013 Act recognised the special enactments providing for the acquisition of land for specific purposes, like the NH Act. Section 105 (1) of the
Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab
Balammal and Ors. V. State of Madras and ors.
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan & Ors. vs State of UP.
Caritas India v. Union of India
Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P.
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh
Harsook Das Bal Kishan Das v First Land Acquisition Collector (1975) 2 SCC 256
K.T.Plantation Pvt.Ltd & Anr. v. State of Karnataka
M. Naga Venkata Lakshmi vs Viskhapatnam Municipal Corp. & Anr.
M/S. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd vs M/S. Super Cassettee Industries Ltd.
N.Padmamma & Ors. v. S.Ramakrishna Reddy & Ors.
Nagpur Improvement Trust & Anr. Vs. Vithal Rao & Ors.
Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao
National Highway Authority of India v. R.Raju
National Highways Authority of India v. Sayedabad Tea Company Limited & Ors.
P.Vajravelu Mudaliar v. Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition West Madras
Popcorn Entertainment & Ors V. City Industrial Development Cor. And Ors
Prithipal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit v. P.V. Krishnamoorthy
State of Bihar v. Kundan Singh
State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar
State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan
State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Basantibai Mohanlal Khetan and Ors.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Reliance Industries Ltd. & Ors.
State of Mysore and Ors. vs. K. C Adiga and Ors
The Project Director, NHAI Vs. M. Hakeem and Ors.
The State of WB vs Bela Banerjee and Ors
Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. M.I.D.C. & Ors.
Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh & Ors.
The right to demand full acquisition under Section 94 of the 2013 Act applies to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, ensuring just compensation and rehabilitation for affected landowners.
Section 94 of 2013 Land Acquisition Act inapplicable to Highways Act acquisitions; only specified schedules for compensation, R&R apply. Belated claims post-award cannot halt projects, but affected u....
The more beneficial provision of Section 80 of the Act, 2013 relating to interest would apply to acquisitions made under the NH Act, and the court directed the respondents to pay the calculated inter....
State legislation cannot provide lesser compensation than that guaranteed under parliamentary law, rendering it repugnant and unconstitutional.
The court ruled that compensation received under the National Highways Act is exempt from income tax under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, emphasizing the equal treatment principle enshrined in Artic....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.