Honble KOTHARI, J.–We are seized in the set of these writ petitions, with an important question of law as to validity and constitutionality of Section 3-J of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short ``the Act of 1956 hereinafter) inserted in the said Act by the National Highway Laws Amendment) Act, 1997 w.e.f. 24.1.1997.

(2). Section 3-J of the Act of 1956 excludes the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. The provisions contained in Section 3, 3- A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-E, 3-F, 3-G, 3-H, 3-I and 3-J were inserted in the Act of 1956 by the said Amending Act of 1997 so as to provide for quicker and smoother acquisitions under the Act of 1956 of the land acquired for the said purpose as it was found that inordinate delay in the acquisition of the lands under the Land Acquisition Act was one of the main impediments in the speedy implementation of highways project and therefore, the said amendment was legislated by the Parliament in 1997.

(3). From the averments made in the writ petition of Banshi Lal Samariya, the facts of the said lead case taken into consideration for deciding the batch of these writ petitions are like this.

(4). The petitioner is the owner of land comprised in Khasra No. 951 of village Raila, Tehsil Banera, district Bhilwara. The lands in question measuring 605756 Sq. feets and the same are said to be non-agriculture i.e. ``Abadi lands situated in the said village in the close vicinity of Railway Station and the said lands also adjoin the said National Highway. The said land in question was acquired under the provisions of the Act of 1956 and award under the said Act was passed by the competent authority on 28.2.2003 vide Annexure 2 filed by the petitioner alongwith writ petitioner awarding compensation @ Rs. 60,000/- per bigha. The said compensation appears to have been paid to the petitioners. However, the petitioners have sought further enhancement of compensation before the Arbitrator as provided in Section 3-G(2) of the Act, which is said to be still pending. The claim of the petitioners is that they are also entitled to be given solatium and interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which Act also should be held equally applicable simultaneously with the provisions of the Act of 1956 to the petitioners and the exclusion of applicability of the said Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by virtue of Section 3-J of the Act of 1956 should be held to be ultra-vires and illegal.

(5). The said writ petition has been contended by the National Highway Authority, respondent No. 3, who has filed a statement of objections in this Court as also by the respondents No. 2 and 4, who have also filed the separate replies to the writ petition. The Union of India though, served and represented has however not filed any reply to the writ petition. The petitioners have filed separate rejoinders to the aforesaid replies of the respondents.

(6). After hearing the learned counsel at length and going through the relevant record and case law cited before us, we proceed to decide the aforesaid question as below.

(7). The first objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Shri M.D. Purohit, Senior Advocate is that there cannot be two legislations by the same legislature on the same subject matter providing for discriminatory provisions and existence of two enactments on the same subject gives power to the State to give different treatment to land owners similarly situated and therefore, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(8). We find ourselves unable to agree with the said submission of the learned counsel. The legislation, Parliament in the present case, is free to enact laws within its jurisdiction, which is described and delineated in the constitutional entries in the seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, list First being for the Parliament or Union, list Second for the State legislations and list Three b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document