'Why Bureaucrats Should Decide Landowner Compensation?': Supreme Court Asks Union To Revisit Provisions Of National Highways Act
While questioning the provisions allowing bureaucrats to determine compensation for land acquisition, the Supreme Court yesterday asked the Union to "revisit" certain provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956.
The Court orally observed that the 1956 Act leaves adjudication of compensation up to the executive, even though acquisitions under other laws, such as the Land Acquisition Act, require judicial oversight. While underlining the importance of fairness, it was suggested that the determination of compensation in case of NHAI acquisitions must undergo independent judicial scrutiny.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to obtain instructions from the Union on this aspect, while dealing with a challenge to a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which held Sections 3J and 3G of the NHA Act as unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14.
For context, Section 3G pertains to the determination of amount payable as compensation and Section 3J states that nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply to an acquisition under the National Highways Act.
The core issue before the High Court revolved around the "discriminatory" compensation mechanisms under the 1956 Act compared to the 1894 Act and Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioners sought solatium (an additional compensation of 30%) and interest as provided under Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the 1894 Act.
After hearing the parties, the Court observed that the provisions unfairly denied benefits available to the landowners under 1894 and 2013 Acts.
A division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri said that Sections 3G and 3J of the 1956 Act created an unfair and discriminatory system for compensating landowners. While landowners under the 1894 and 2013 Acts receive higher compensation with additional statutory benefits, those under the 1956 Act were denied the same. This, the court ruled, was a violation of the Right to Equality of the Constitution.
Relying on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, the Court held that solatium and interest should apply even to acquisitions under the National Highways Act. It reaffirmed that all land acquisitions should follow a uniform compensation standard.
Case Title: M/S RIAR BUILDERS PVT LTD AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., Diary No. 26933-2025 (and connected cases)