ORDER :

G.R. Swaminathan, J.

1. The writ petitioner owns lands in Manthikulam Village, Madurai North Taluk, Madurai District. Their lands face the prospect of acquisition. A notification under Section 3(A) (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 was issued on 17.04.2018 for developing a part of NH 44A between 0.00 Km to 29.6 km in Madurai District. The petitioner's land are covered by the aforesaid notification.

2. According to the petitioner, the parliament had enacted a comprehensive legislation namely, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30 of 2013) (hereinafter called as "the Act") covering all forms of acquisition. While it is true that the said Act had initially exempted its applicability to National Highways Act, 1956 by including it along with a few other enactments in its 4th Schedule, on account of the failure of the Central Government to issue a notification as contemplated by Section 105(3) of the Act, there has been an implied repeal of the National Highways Act, 1956 making all the provisions of Central Act 30 of 2013 applicable even in the case of acquisition for National Highways. In order to overcome the said situation, the Government had issued the impugned notification making the provisions of Central Act No. 30 of 2013 pertaining to compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to apply to all cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the 4th Schedule. According to the petitioner, this notification is unconstitutional and illegal and ultra vires the parent Act. Hence, he has mounted a challenge to the impugned notification. A learned Judge of this Court granted interim stay of the impugned notification on 26.10.2018. The respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit.

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

Contentions of the writ petitioner:

4. Shri. M. Ajmal Khan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that Central Act 30 of 2013 is a comprehensive legislation which would cover acquisition of all kinds including one for infrastructural development. The entire field of law regarding acquisition was thus intended to be occupied by the said statute that came into force on 01.01.2014. However, taking note of the existence of other prior legislations, the parliament devised a mechanism vide Section 105 of the Act providing a conditional exemption. Section 105 of the said Act reads as under:

105. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases or to apply with certain modifications.-(1) Subject to sub-section (3), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule.

(2) Subject to sub-section (2) of section 106, the Central Government may, by notification, omit or add to any of the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule.

(3) The Central Government shall, by notification, within one year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that any of the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may be.

(4) A copy of every notification proposed to be issued under sub-section (3), shall be laid in draft before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprise