Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court, in a batch of appeals filed by the Union of India and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), considered the validity of the non-grant of solatium and interest under the National Highways Act, 1956, which are otherwise available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had struck down Section 3J of the National Highways Act to the extent it excluded solatium and interest, holding it violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The facts of the lead case involved a notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act for acquisition of land for four-laning of National Highway No.1-A. The competent authority awarded compensation, and on dispute, an arbitrator fixed a higher rate but did not award solatium or interest as the Act does not provide for them. The High Court, relying on its earlier decision in M/s Golden Iron and Steel Forging, directed payment of solatium at 30%. The Union of India appealed. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of both Acts and the arguments of the parties. The Court noted that the National Highways Act is a complete code and expressly excludes the application of the Land Acquisition Act. It held that solatium and interest are statutory rights, not fundamental rights, and the legislature can choose to grant or deny them under different statutes. The Court distinguished cases under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act and the Defence of India Act, where solatium was denied but the context was different. The Court also rejected the argument that the 1997 Amendment is protected by Article 31-C, as its object is speedy implementation of highway projects, not distribution of material resources under Article 39(b). The Court concluded that there is no violation of Article 14 as persons whose lands are acquired under different statutes are not similarly situated. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Discrimination - Different Acquisition Acts - The non-grant of solatium and interest under the National Highways Act, 1956, which are available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does not violate Article 14 as the two Acts operate in different fields and the National Highways Act is a complete code. The court held that there is no discrimination between persons whose lands are acquired under different statutes as they are not similarly situated. (Paras 2-4) B) Land Acquisition - Solatium - Nature - Statutory Right - Solatium and interest are statutory rights and not integral parts of compensation. They can be granted or denied by the legislature depending on the object of the statute. The court held that the absence of solatium and interest under the National Highways Act does not render the compensation inadequate or arbitrary. (Paras 5-6) C) Constitutional Law - Article 31-C - Protection - Directive Principles - The 1997 Amendment to the National Highways Act, 1956, introducing Sections 3A to 3J, is not protected by Article 31-C as the object of the amendment is speedy implementation of highway projects, not the distribution of material resources under Article 39(b). The court rejected the argument that the amendment is shielded from Article 14 challenge. (Para 4) D) Land Acquisition - National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3J - Exclusion of Land Acquisition Act - Section 3J of the National Highways Act expressly excludes the application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court held that this exclusion is valid and does not violate Article 14 as the National Highways Act is a special statute with its own complete code for acquisition and compensation. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the non-grant of solatium and interest under the National Highways Act, 1956, which are available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and whether Section 3J of the National Highways Act should be struck down to that extent.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and held that Section 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956, excluding solatium and interest, is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- National Highways Act is a complete code
- Solatium and interest are statutory rights not fundamental rights
- Article 14 does not require parity between different acquisition statutes
- Article 31-C protection not applicable as amendment not for Article 39(b) purpose
