Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Judgment Reserved on : 23.03.2021 Judgment Pronounced on : 04.10.2021 CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE W.P.Nos.697, 701, 716, 721, 722, 724, 725, 733, 744, 746, 747, 748, 980, 983, 985, 2774, 2779, 2782, 2787, 2798, 2802, 2804, 2806, 2808, 2809, 2818, 2821, 2824, 2826, 2827, 3031, 3052, 3054, 3055, 3058, 3060, 3062, 3063, 3065, 3067, 3264, 3265, 3267, 3270, 3272, 3273, 3275, 3277, 3278, 3279, 3599, 3600, 3610, 3612, 3614, 3618, 3621, 3626, 3630, 3632, 3635, 3638, 3640, 3643, 3646, 3649, 3651, 3654 of 2021 and W.P.No.3323 of 2020 and WMP.No.775 of 2021 in WP.No.716 of 2021 WMP.No.3136 of 2021 in W.P.No.2782 of 2021 WMP.No.3157 of 2021 in WP.No.2818 of 2021 WMP.No.4158 of 2021 in WP.No.3626 of 2021 WMP.No.4162 of 2021 in WP.No.3630 of 2021 WMP.No.4169 of 2021 in WP.No.3640 of 2021 WMP.No.4181 of 2021 in W.P.No.3651 of 2021
1.Etti Gounder ... Petitioner in WP.No.697 of 2021 2.Thillagavathi ... Petitioner in WP.No.701 of 2021 ... 1st Petitioner in WP.No.716 of 2021
3.P.Sudha ... 2nd Petitioner in WP.No.716 of 2021 4.P.Priya ... 3rd Petitioner in WP.No.716 of 2021
5.Duraisamy ... Petitioner in WP.No.721 of 2021 6.Veerappan ... Petitioner in WP.No.722 of 2021
7.Pandian ... Petitioner in WP.No.724 of
2021
8.Singaraj ... Petitioner in WP.No.725 of 2021 9.Thavamani ... Petitioner in WP.No.733 of 2021 10.S.Babu ... Petitioner in WP.No.744 of 2021 11.Balu ... Petitioner in WP.No.746 of 2021 12.K.Mani ... Petitioner in WP.No.747 of 2021 13.Palanisamy ... Petitioner in WP.No.748 of 2021 14.Natesan ... Petitioner in WP.No.980 of 2021 15.P.Selvaraj ... Petitioner in WP.No.983 of 2021 16.Rajan ... Petitioner in WP.No.985 of 2021
17.S.Santhi ... Petitioner in WP.No.2774 of 2021 18.R.Selvi ... Petitioner in WP.No.2779 of 2021 19.R.Subramani ... Petitioner in WP.No.2782 of 2021 20.Manonmani ... Petitioner in WP.No.2787 of 2021 21.B.Kanaga ... Petitioner in WP.No.2798 of 2021 22.P.Angammal ... Petitioner in WP.No.2802 of 2021 23.K.Manikandan ... Petitioner in WP.No.2804 of 2021 24.Shanthi ... Petitioner in WP.No.2806 of 2021 25.S.Selvarajan ... Petitioner in WP.No.2808 of 2021 26.P.Varadharaj ... Petitioner in WP.No.2809 of 2021 27.K.Balasubramani ... Petitioner in WP.No.2818 of 2021 28.M.Chennappan ... Petitioner in WP.No.2821 of 2021 29.C.Leelavathi ... Petitioner in WP.No.2824 of 2021 30.K.Shanmugavel ... Petitioner in WP.No.2826 of 2021 31.K.Muthammal ... Petitioner in WP.No.2827 of 2021 32.Bhanumathi ... Petitioner in WP.No.3031 of 2021 33.V.Mohan ... Petitioner in WP.No.3052 of 2021 34.Nagammal ... Petitioner in WP.No.3054 of 2021 35.Marimuthu ... Petitioner in WP.No.3055 of 2021 36.Madheswari ... Petitioner in WP.No.3058 of 2021 37.Parthiban ... Petitioner in WP.No.3060 of 2021 38.S.Patchiapan ... Petitioner in WP.No.3062 of 2021 39.Raja ... Petitioner in WP.No.3063 of 2021 40.B.Rangaraj ... Petitioner in WP.No.3065 of 2021 41.S.Sadhasivam ... Petitioner in WP.No.3067 of 2021 42.K.Sakthivel ... Petitioner in WP.No.3264 of 2021 43.Selvarani ... Petitioner in WP.No.3265 of 2021
44.S.Senthilkumar ... Petitioner in WP.No.3267 of 2021 45.N.Subramaniam ... Petitioner in WP.No.3270 of 2021 46.M.Subramanian ... Petitioner in WP.No.3272 of 2021 47.Sumathi ... Petitioner in WP.No.3273 of 2021 48.Dhanam ... Petitioner in WP.No.3275 of 2021 49.S.P.Annadurai ... Petitioner in WP.No.3277 of 2021 50.K.Jayakumar ... Petitioner in WP.No.3278 of 2021 51.N.Kaliannan ... Petitioner in WP.No.3279 of 2021 52.V.Kandasamy ... Petitioner in WP.No.3599 of 2021 53.Selvambal ... Petitioner in WP.No.3600 of 2021 54.Rangama Naicker ... Petitioner in WP.No.3610 of 2021 55.M.Kuzhanthaivel ... Petitioner in WP.No.3612 of 2021 56.M.Rajeswari ... Petitioner in WP.No.3614 of 2021 57.A.Gopi Kannan ... Petitioner in WP.No.3618 of 2021 58.M.Annamalai ... Petitioner in WP.No.3621 of 2021
59.Arumugam ... 1st Petitioner in WP.No.3626 of 2021 60.Doraisamy ... 2nd Petitioner in WP.No.3626 of 2021 61.Easwaran ... 3rd Petitioner in WP.No.3626 of 2021
62.Jayakkodi ... Petitioner in WP.No.3630 of 2021 63.Nagammal ... Petitioner in WP.No.3632 of 2021 64.Chellammal ... Petitioner in WP.No.3635 of 2021 65.S.M.Ramasamy ... Petitioner in WP.No.3638 of 2021
66.Viji ... 1st Petitioner in WP.No.3640 of 2021 67.Devi ... 2nd Petitioner in WP.No.3640 of 2021 68.Muthukumaran ... 3rd Petitioner in WP.No.3640 of 2021
69.Muthuvel ... Petitioner in WP.No.3643 of 2021 71.Manonmani ... Petitioner in WP.No.3646 of 2021 71.N.Thalamuthu ... Petitioner in WP.No.3649 of 2021 73.K.Rangasamy ... Petitioner in WP.No.3651 of 2021 73.T.Masilamani ... Petitioner in WP.No.3654 of 2021
74.A.Sampoorani
75A.Balaganesh
76.A.Narashimmraj ... Petitioners in WP.No.3323 of 2020 Vs
1.The District Collector Namakkal District Namakkal. ... 1st Respondent in all W.Ps (except WP.No.3323 of 2020)
2.The Competent Authority and District Revenue Officer, Namakkal (Land Acquisition for National Highways)
Namakkal Collectorate Campus Thummankurichi Namakkal. ... 2nd Respondent in all WPs (except WP.No.3323 of 2020)
3.The Project Director National Highways Authority of India Project Implementation Unit (NS)
Door No.212-3/D3-1, Srinagar Colony Narasothipatti, Salem – 630 004.
... 4th Respondent in WP.No.3323 of 2020 ... 3rd Respondent in other WPs
4.The Union of India Rep. by the Secretary to Government Ministry of Road Transport & Highways Transport Bhawan, No.1, Parliament Street New Delhi – 110 001. ... 1st Respondent in WP.No.3323 of 2020
5.The National Highways Authority of India Rep by the Chairman G5 & 6, Sector 10, Dwarka New Delhi – 110 075. ... 2nd Respondent in WP.No.3323 of 2020
6.The Chief General Manager National Highways Authority of India Regional Office, Sri Tower, III Floor DP-34, (SP) Industrial Estate Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. ... 3rd Respondent in WP.No.3323 of 2020
7.The Arbitrator cum the District Collector Salem Salem District – 636 001. ... 5th Respondent in WP.No.3323 of 2020
8.The Competent Authority cum Special District Revenue Officer (LA) National Highways No.7, 46, 47 & 66 Salem – Krishnagiri District No.433, Ex-serviceman Welfare Building I Floor, Bangalore Road Krishnagiri – 635 001. ... 6th Respondent in WP.No.3323 of 2020 Prayer in WP.No.3323 of 2020 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to compute and pay to the petitioners for acquisition of their lands measuring 4000 sq.mts., in Survey No.44/1B, Annathanapatti Village covered under Award of the 6th respondent dated 27.06.2008 in R.O.C.No,1299/2008 (A2) as modified by the arbitral award of the 5th respondent dated 08.11.2012 in NH.No.47 Aa.Va.No.554/B2, the benefits under Section 23(1A), 23(2), and the proviso to Section 28 of the Land Acquistion Act, 1894.
Prayer in WP.Nos.697, 701, 716, 721, 722, 724, 725, 733, 744, 746, 747, 748, 980, 983, 985 of 2021 : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to pay solatium amount at 30% as per Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an additional amount at 12% as per Section 23(1-A) of the said Act, 1894 from the date of notification under Section 3A(1) of National Highways Act, 1956, to the date of award for the compensation amount as enhanced by the first respondent i.e., 369.42 per sq.mtr., 180.06 per sq.mtr., together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date of possession and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of realization as per Section 28 of the said Act, 1894 for the said enhanced compensation, solatium and additional market value in respect of the petitioner's land situated at Pappinaickenpatti Village, Namakkal Taluk and District, comprised in Survey Nos.3/6, 10/1, 33/3B, 33/3C, 34/1G2, 1/3A2B3, 3/1B1, 34/3B2B2, 4/1E, 80/8, 8/1B3, 128/1, 130/3E1, 3/5, 4/1A, 4/1C, 3/7A, 80/6B, 80/7, 80/6A, 80/5, 130/2A, 130/1B, acquired for the purpose of widening four lane of National Highways No.7 in line with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh by considering the petitioner's representation dated 12.08.2020, 18.08.2020 respectively and to pass orders.
Prayer in WP.Nos.2774, 2779, 2782, 2787, 2798, 2802, 2804, 2806, 2808, 2809, 2818, 2821, 2824, 2826, 2827, 3031, 3052, 3054, 3055, 3058,3060, 3062, 3063, 3065, 3067, 3264, 3265, 3267, 3270, 3272, 3273, 3275, 3277, 3278, 3279, 3599, 3600, 3610, 3612, 3614, 3618, 3621, 3626, 3630, 3632, 3635, 3638, 3640, 3643, 3646, 3649, 3651, 3654 of 2021 : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents herein to pay solatium amount at 30% as per Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and an additional amount at 12% as per Section 23(1-A) of the said Act, 1894 from the date of notification under Section 3A(1) of National Highways Act, 1956, to the date of award for the compensation amount as enhanced by the first respondent i.e., 122.25 per sq.mtr., for Phase-I and 323.07 per sq.mtr., for Phase-II respectively together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum for one year from the date of possession and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of realization as per Section 28 of the said Act, 1894 for the said enhanced compensation, solatium and additional market value in respect of the petitioner's land situated at Sellappampatti Village, Namakkal Taluk and District, comprised in Survey Nos.137/4B1, 137/2C1, 139/2AD, 105/3A, 21/5, 21/8F, 78/1C, 21/8A, 137/4B3, 105/3A, 58/2D, 75/2B1, 104/3A, 75/2B2, 75/1B, 109/4, 78/1D, 107/1C, 107/1D1, 107/2A, 107/2C1, 107/2B1, 108/2, 78/1B, 137/4C, 137/6B, 65/5, 104/2A, 109/4, 139/2A2, 139/2B, 139/2C3, 107/1F3, 107/2D, 107/2E, 65/5, 104/3A, 65/5, 137/5A, 137/2D1, 105/3E, 71/8B, 104/2G, 87/3, 87/2, 68/2B, 104/3B, 71/8A, 105/3A, 21/1A, 21/8B, 105/3A, 109/2, 109/1B, 109/1K, 109/3A, 109/3C, 139/2AE, 139/2P, 139/2AC2, 139/2A1, 139/2C3, 69/2A2, 69/2B2, 103/2B, 75/1B, 65/5, 142/3A, 142/3C, 73/6, 73/5C, 75/2A, 75/3, 69/1, 71/5, 59/6B, 71/1, 65/4B, 71/2, 71/3, 71/4, 73/7A acquired for the purpose of widening four lane of National Highways No.7 in line with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem Singh by considering the petitioner's representation dated 10.08.2020 and to pass orders.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.M.Hariharan (in WP.No.3323 of 2020)
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Senthil (in all other W.Ps)
For Respondents :
In WP.3323 of 2020 : Mr.G.Karthikeyan Additional Solicitor General for R1 Mr.Su.Srinivasan for R2 to R4 Mr.D.Raja Additional Government Pleader for R5 & R6 Mr.Sharath Chandran Amicus curiae In other batch of cases : Mr.D.Raja Additional Government Pleader ` for R1 & R2 Mr.Su.Srinivasan Standing Counsel for R3 Mr.Sharath Chandran Amicus curiae
COMMON ORDER
The short point involved in this batch of 69 petitions concerns the entitlement of the petitioners to solatium and interest on the compensation paid to them for the acquisition of their lands under the provisions of National Highways Act (henceforth would be referred to as the Act).
A Note on Legislative History:
2. A travel through the lane of legislative history may help capturing the setting in which the petitioners rest their cause for the present action. On 24-01-1997, the President of India promulgated the National Highways Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1997 by which Sections 3-A to 3-J were inserted into the National Highways Act, 1956. These provisions provide for a mechanism for speedy acquisition of land for the construction of national highways and also for a speedier resolution of disputes relating to determination of compensation through a mechanism of statutory arbitration as contemplated in Section 3-G of the Act. Sec.3-G (7) of the Act sets out the relevant criteria which the arbitrator must take into account in determining the compensation under the Act. Section 3G(7) roughly corresponds to Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 3-J, which, as would be seen has become the epicentre of the present lis, specifically declared that nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, would apply to an acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956. As Sec. 3G(7) imported only the elements of Section 23(1) of the L.A Act for determination of compensation, Sec. 3-J had the effect of excluding the benefit of the additional compensation under Section 23 (2) statutorily computed at 30% of the market value (commonly known as ‘solatium’, and hence would be referred to as such in this order) and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The ordinance was replaced by the National Highways Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997 (Act 16 of 1997). This position continued till 01.01.2015 when the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 made solatium and interest payable for acquisitions under the National Highways Act as well (vide Sec. 105). To complete the narration, recently in Project Director, NHAI Vs Hakkim [2021 Scc Online 473], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has travelled far enough to hold that the entire amendment introduced in 1997 to the National Highways Act is discriminatory, but stopped short of declaring it as unconstitutional as its vires was not challenged before it.
The legislative history concludes here.
Sec.3-J and Constitutionality – The Journey:
3.1 The constitutional validity of Section 3-J was first called into question before the Karnataka High Court in Lalita v Union of India [ILR 2002 Karnataka 259]. Following the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vajaravelu Mudaliar v Special Deputy Collector, Madras [AIR 1965 SC 1017] and Nagpur Improvement Trust v Vithal Rao [AIR 1973 SC 689], the Karnataka High Court, by an order dated 11.10.2002, struck down Section 3-J as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. However, in 2005 a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Banshilal Samariya v Union of India [2006 Supp R.L.W 559] dissented from the view of the Karnataka High Court and upheld the validity of Sec.3-J, partly on account of the fact that the decision of the learned single judge of the Karnataka High Court had been stayed by a Division Bench of the same Court in W.A 6115- 17 of 2002. A few years later, a similar challenge arose before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Golden Iron and Steel Forging vs Union of India [2008 SCCOnline P&H 498], and a Division Bench of the said Court struck down Sec.3- J of the Act as violative of Article 14. Its reasoning was along the lines of Karnataka High Court in Lalita case.
3.2 Following the judgment in Golden Iron and Steel case [2008 SCC Online P&H 498], a learned Single Judge of this Court struck down Section 3-J of the Act in Chakrapani v Union of India [(2011) 7 MLJ 858]. Bot
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
