Section 3(j) of the National Highways Act is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21, affirmed by previous rulings.

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. No-one has put in appearance to press the writ petition. Mr. Maulik J. Nanavati, learned advocate has put in appearnace on behalf of the Respondent No.4– NHA .

2. Present petition has been filed with the following reliefs :-

“A. Admit and allow this petition;

B. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to declare Section 3 (j) of the National Highways Act, 1956 as unconstitutional and ultra-virus to Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India .;

C. Issue appropriate, writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the land acquisition proceedings in pursuance of notification dated 17.03.2009 published in the Gazette of India, Extra Ordinary, Par-II, U/s. 3 Sub Section (ii) of National Highways Act, 1956 ;

D. Issue appropriate writ, order of direction for quashing and setting aside the amended award dated 09.04.2024 declared by the respondent No.2 herein(annexure -C) so far as it stands against the petitioners, on the ground of awarding lesser compensation then demanded by the petitioners;”

3. In so far as the first relief claimed in the writ petition, ground No. A and C read as under:-

“A. That the petitioners state that while other section inserted into the National Highways Act mainly Section 3A, 3C, 3D, 3E and 3G were similar to the analogous section to Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , the insertion of Section 3J has excluded the application of Land Acquisition Act with the sole object to deny solatium and interest payable under the Land Acquisition Act, and also deny the right of appeal against the compensation determined by the Competent Authority. Thus, Section 3J is hit by Artile 14 of the Constitution of India , as it discriminates with regard to payment of compensation, in case of the acquisition under two different acts.

C. That the petitioners state that Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 is violative of Constitution of India as it does not satisfy the well known test of reasonable classification, permissible for enacting the legislation and the said section on the fact of it discriminates between persons with regard to payment of compensation.”

4. With respect to the said challenge, it is pertinent to note that Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”) incorporated by 1997 amendment has been struck down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Tarsem Singh & Others reported in (2019) 9 SCC 304 being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India to the extent indicated therein. No other plausible issue has been made by the petitioner apart from the assertion that it was enacted to deny solatium and interest payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , which has already been granted by the Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (Supra).

5. As regards the challenge to the Notification dated 17.03.2009, published under Section 3 (a) of the Act, 1956, no foundation has been laid in the writ petition. Moreover, the challenge to the notification published in the year 2009 cannot be sustained after a gap of 16 years, for the fact that the acquisition proceedings have been brought to its logical end with the declaration of the award dated 02.01.2015 by the Competent Authority.

The third prayer to set aside the amended award dated

09.04.2024 on the ground of awarding lesser compensation cannot be examined within the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India . Any challenge to the award can be laid by approaching the Arbitrator under Section 3G of the Act.

The present petition stands dismissed, accordingly.