Back
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, SURYA KANT
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Tarsem Singh – Respondent
Solatium is part and parcel of compensation payable for compulsory acquisition of land. (!) (!) (!) [1000640260009]
National Highways Act, 1956 originally did not provide for land acquisition; acquisitions were made under Land Acquisition Act, 1894, entitling owners to solatium and interest. [1000640260005]
1997 Amendment to National Highways Act introduced Sections 3A to 3J to expedite land acquisition by vesting land upon declaration under Section 3D, determining compensation via competent authority or arbitration, without solatium or full interest. [1000640260006][1000640260007][1000640260008][p_17 to p_70]
Object of 1997 Amendment was to reduce delays in highway projects through faster acquisition process, not related to distribution of material resources under directive principles. [p_10 to p_15][1000640260017]
Article 31C protection unavailable as 1997 Amendment lacks direct rational nexus with Article 39(b); denying solatium/interest not basically or essentially necessary for Amendment's object. [1000640260012 to 1000640260017][p_83 to p_105]
Denial of solatium and interest under National Highways Act discriminates against similarly situated landowners compared to those under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or RFCTLARR Act, 2013, violating Article 14. [1000640260018 to 1000640260023][1000640260037]
No reasonable classification based on public purpose or acquiring authority justifies different compensation (excluding solatium/interest) for identical compulsory acquisitions. [1000640260020 to 1000640260023]
Provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 regarding solatium (Sections 23(1A), 23(2)) and interest (Section 28 proviso) apply to acquisitions under National Highways Act; Section 3J unconstitutional to extent it excludes them. [1000640260040][p_163 to p_174]
Post-2013, RFCTLARR Act provisions (including solatium/interest) apply to National Highways Act acquisitions via notifications, confirming non-discrimination. [1000640260010][1000640260011][p_77 to p_80][p_176 to p_198][1000640260037]
Section 3G(2) of National Highways Act provides 10% for affected easement/right of user, but does not compensate for solatium/interest denial; comparable provisions exist under Land Acquisition Act. [1000640260034 to 1000640260036]
All appeals by Union of India dismissed; solatium/interest payable in these cases. [1000640260040][1000640260041]
JUDGMENT :
R.F. NARIMAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. A batch of appeals before us by the Union of India question the view of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which is that the non-grant of solatium and interest to lands acquired under the National Highways Act, which is available if lands are acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, is bad in law, and consequently that Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 be struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India to this extent.
3. The facts of one of these appeals may be taken up as illustrative of the points for consideration in all these appeals. In Union of India & Anr. vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7064 of 2019 @ SLP (C) No.9599 of 2019), a notification dated 24.12.2004 was issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), intending to acquire land belonging to the Respondents for the purpose of four-laning National Highway No.1-A on certain stretches of the Jalandhar-Pathankot section as well as the Pathankot-Jammu section falling within the State of Punjab. On 11th July, 2005, the said lands were declared to have vested in the State pursuant to
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
