The application of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("2013 Act") to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956 ("NH Act"). Petitioners sought additional compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement benefits under the 2013 Act, contending that the 2013 Act’s Second and Third Schedule benefits apply to NH Act acquisitions. The Court held that these claims deserve individualized assessment and rejected the blanket denial by the authorities, directing them to re-evaluate the entitlements under the 2013 Act.

Acts and Sections Discussed

1. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:

   • Section 105(3): Specifies conditions for applying the 2013 Act's beneficial provisions to acquisitions under other acts listed in the Fourth Schedule.
   • Schedules: First Schedule (compensation), Second Schedule (rehabilitation and resettlement), and Third Schedule (infrastructure amenities).

2. National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act):

   • Section 3A: Provides for the declaration of intent to acquire land for national highways.
   • Section 3G: Deals with the determination of compensation for acquisitions.

3. Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015: Extends the application of the 2013 Act’s Schedules to NH Act acquisitions.

Main Facts (Para-wise with Headings)

1. Issue and Common Legal Question

   • The petitions raised a common legal question: whether the 2013 Act's provisions, particularly for rehabilitation and resettlement, apply to NH Act acquisitions (Para 2-3).

2. Petitioners' Grievance on Denied Benefits

   • Petitioners argued that despite the entitlement under the 2013 Act, their requests for benefits were denied mechanically, without objective consideration (Para 4-5).

3. Legislative Framework for Land Acquisition

   • Analysis of the 2013 Act's provisions, including Section 105 and schedules, and related ordinances ensuring compensation and benefits for NH Act acquisitions (Para 6-12).

4. Case Study: Roshanbi Aziz Motiwala

   • Detailed examination of Writ Petition No.15282 of 2022 concerning acquisition for the Pune-Solapur Highway, where compensation was awarded, but rehabilitation benefits were denied (Para 13-15).

5. Manual of Guidelines and its Legal Position

   • Discussion of the 2017 Guidelines and the 2018 Manual, which the Court noted should not override the 2013 Act’s entitlements (Para 16-19).

6. Court's Analysis on Mechanical Denial

   • The Court emphasized that the denial based on the Manual was inappropriate, directing that entitlements under the 2013 Act should be examined case-by-case (Para 20-21).

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment establishes that authorities must objectively apply the 2013 Act’s Second and Third Schedule provisions in NH Act acquisitions. A generic or mechanical denial based on guidelines is improper, as the Act's entitlements require individualized assessment per case.

Subjects:

Application of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956.

• Land Acquisition
• National Highways Act
• Right to Fair Compensation
• Rehabilitation and Resettlement
• 2013 Act Schedules