1. This Writ Petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation has been filed by G. Sundarrajan, stated to be one of the trustees of a registered public Trust under the name and style 'Poovulagin Nanbargal', created for spreading awareness to the public about sustainable development, energy conservation, safe food and environmental protection. The petitioner states that this Public Interest Litigation is initiated in discharge of his fundamental duties under Article 51A(g) and (j) of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare Section 105 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (RFCT Act), and the Fourth Schedule to the RFCT Act as well as the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act) in respect of the proposed Green Field Chennai-Salem Highway (subject Highway) in Tamil Nadu as unconstitutional, null and void.

3. The petitioner would state that he recently came to know that the second respondent namely, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, had commenced land acquisition proceedings by issuing notification, dated 11.06.2018, under Section 3A(1) of the NH Act in respect of the subject Highway and that persons likely to be affected by the acquisition of the land for the proposed project have been directed to file their objections within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification and the project is likely to affect people in Kancheepuram, Tiruvannamalai, Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri and Salem Districts. The petitioner would further state that even before the objections are received from the persons likely to be affected by the land acquisition, the competent authorities have already started proceedings pursuant to Section 3A(1) of the NH Act, much to the detriment of the agriculturists in the above Districts. The petitioner would further state that the RFCT Act came into force on 01.01.2014 with a laudable object, providing for consultation with the institutions of local government and Grama Sabha for a participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition with least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families. It is further stated that contrary to the very object of the RFCT Act, Section 105 has been inserted in the said Act, which provides that the provisions of the RFCT Act, shall not apply to the land acquisition under the enactments specified in the fourth Schedule. The fourth schedule contains 13 enactments and one of them is the NH Act. It is further submitted that Section 105(3) of the RFCT Act, provides that the Union of India shall apply the provisions of the Act relating to the determination of compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement to the land acquisition made under NH Act and other enactments, however Section 105 operates against the application of Chapters II, III & IV of the RFCT Act to the land acquisitions effected under any of the enactments mentioned in the Fourth Schedule including the NH Act.

4. The petitioner's case is that there is no rationale whatsoever for excluding the provisions of the Chapter II, III & IV, from the purview of acquisition under the enactments mentioned in the Fourth Schedule. By including the 13 enactments, it would be destructive to the very objective of the RFCT Act, which is a comprehensive legislation with regard to land acquisition for any public purpose.

5. Mr. M. Radhakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the preamble of the RFCT Act states that it is an Act to ensure, in consultation with the institutions of self Government and Grama Sabha established under the Constitution, a human, participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition for industrialisation, development of essential infrastructure facilities and urbanisation with a least disturbance to the owners o