Back
2011 WLR 193, 2011 (1) CWC 763
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA
T. Chakrapani & Others
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by Secretary National Highways Department, New Delhi & Others
W.P.Nos.15699, 15818, 15819 of 2008, 22912, 22913, 28122 to 28133, 28314 to 28321, 28917 to 28922 of 2010
Decided on : 04-03-2011
The National Highways Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997 (the Act) was challenged on the ground that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India by discriminating against landowners whose land was acquired under the Act as compared to those whose land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Acquisition Act). The petitioners argued that the Act denied them solatium and interest, which were payable under the Acquisition Act, and that they were not provided with a right of appeal against the determination of the market value by the competent authority. The Court held that Section 3-J of the Act, which excluded the application of the Acquisition Act, was unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court found that there was no intelligible differentia or rational nexus between the object sought to be achieved by the Act and the discrimination created by Section 3-J. The Court also held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation, including solatium and interest, as provided under the Acquisition Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were landowners whose land was acquired under the National Highways Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997 (the Act), challenged the constitutional validity of the Act on the ground that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India by discriminating against them as compared to landowners whose land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Acquisition Act). The petitioners argued that the Act denied them solatium and interest, which were payable under the Acquisition Act, and that they were not provided with a right of appeal against the determination of the market value by the competent authority.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 3-J of the Act, which excluded the application of the Acquisition Act, was unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court found that there was no intelligible differentia or rational nexus between the object sought to be achieved by the Act and the discrimination created by Section 3-J. The Court also held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation, including solatium and interest, as provided under the Acquisition Act.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 3-J of the National Highways Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997 (the Act), which excluded the application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Acquisition Act), was unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to compensation, including solatium and interest, as provided under the Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Section 3-J of the Act was unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because it discriminated against landowners whose land was acquired under the Act as compared to those whose land was acquired under the Acquisition Act. The Court found that there was no intelligible differentia or rational nexus between the object sought to be achieved by the Act and the discrimination created by Section 3-J. The Court also held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation, including solatium and interest, as provided under the Acquisition Act.
Final Decision: The Court allowed all the writ petitions and held that Section 3-J of the Act was unconstitutional and void. The petitioners were held entitled to compensation, including solatium and interest, as provided under the Acquisition Act.
1. This judgment shall dispose of the following writ petitions, viz.,
Sl. No.
Case No.
Name of the Petitioner
1
W.P.No.15699 of 2008
1. T. Chakrapani
2. T. Govindarajalu Naidu,
3. Elumalai Achari
4. V. Chidambaram
5. K. Velayudam
6. K. Saravanan
7. Ranganayagi
2
W.P.No.15818 of 2008
R. Srinivasan
3
W.P.No.15819 of 2008
R. Srinivasan
4
W.P.No.22912 of 2010
J. Rajan Babu
5
W.P.No.22913 of 2010
V. Saravanan
6
W.P.No.28122 of 2010 J. Kaliyamuthu Kumar 7
W.P.No.28123 of 2010
J. Kaliyamuthu Kumar
8
W.P.No.28124 of 2010
S. Gopalakrishnan 9
W.P.No.28125 of 2010
S. Gopalakrishnan
10
W.P.No.28126 of 2010
K. Senthilkumar 11
W.P.No.28127 of 2010
K. Senthilkumar
12
W.P.No.28128 of 2010
S.G. Jayabalan
13
W.P.No.28129 of 2010
S.G. Jayabalan
14
W.P.No.28130 of 2010
K.G. Vasudeva Mudaliar
15
W.P.No.28131 of 2010
K.G. Vasudeva Mudaliar
16
W.P.No.28132 of 2010
K. Munuswamy Mudaliar
17
W.P.No.28133 of 2010 K. Munuswamy Mudaliar 18
W.P.No.28314 of 2010
R. Sreedharan
19
W.P.No.28315 of 2010
R. Sreedharan
20
W.P.No.28316 of 2010
M.S. Subramania Mudaliar
21
W.P.No.28317 of 2010
M.S. Subramania Mudaliar
22
W.P.No.28318 of 2010
C. Rajarathinam
23
W.P.No.28319 of 2010
C. Rajarathinam
24
W.P.No.28320 of 2010
S. Jerome Quintin
25
W.P.No.28321 of 2010
S. Jerome Quintin
26
W.P.No.28917 of 2010
R. Yashodha
27
W.P.No.28918 of 2010
R. Yashodha 28
W.P.No.28919 of 2010
K.E. Thirumalaiappan
29
W.P.No.28920 of 2010
K.E. Thirumalaiappan
30
W.P.No.28921 of 2010
P. Vengal Rao
31
W.P.No.28922 of 2010
P. Vengal Rao
as the common question of law and facts are raised in all these writ petitions.
2. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the constitutional validity of the National Highways Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The object and reasons for enactment of the Act are:
"In order to create an environment to promote private investment in national highways, to speed up construction of highways ad to remove bottlenecks in their proper management, it was considered necessary to amend the National Highways Act, 1956 and the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988.
3. In order to achieve the object, the Legislature added the following Sections to the National Highways Act, 1956, and the National Highways Authorities under the Act, 1958, which read as under:
"2. Amendment of Section 2: In Section 2 of the National Highways Act, 1956 (49 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the National Highways Act), in sub-section (1) the words "except such parts thereof as are situated within any municipal area" shall be omitted.
3. Substitution of new Sections for Section 3: For Section 3 of the National Highways Act, the following Section shall be substituted, namely:
3. Definition: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) "competent authority" means any person or authority authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority for such area as may be specified in the notification;
(b) "land" includes benefits to arise out of land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth.
3A. Power to acquire land etc:- Where the Central Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land;
(2) Every notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the land.
(3) The competent authority shall cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language.
3B. Power to enter for survey, etc: On the issue of a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3A, it shall be lawful for any person, authorised by the Central Government in this behalf, to;
(a) make any inspection, survey, measurement, valuation or enquiry;
(b) take levels;
(c) dig or bore into sub-soil;
(d) set out boundaries and intend d
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
