Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns three writ petitions filed by landowners challenging the land acquisition proceedings for the four-laning of National Highway 744 (Thirumangalam-Rajapalayam section) under the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioners sought declarations that the land acquisition provisions of the NH Act and the Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015 are unconstitutional, and sought to quash the notifications issued under Sections 3-A(1) and 3-D(1&2) of the NH Act, as well as the notice under Section 3-G(3). They also sought a mandamus directing the respondents to follow the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The factual background involves the Union of India issuing a notification under Section 3-A(1) of the NH Act on 24.09.2020 for acquiring land for the highway project, followed by a declaration under Section 3-D on 29.01.2021 and a notice for compensation under Section 3-G on 19.02.2021. The petitioners argued that the NH Act provisions are unconstitutional as they do not provide for social impact assessment or rehabilitation and resettlement as required under the 2013 Act, and that the Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015, which exempts NH Act acquisitions from the 2013 Act, is ultra vires. They also contended that no technical approval was obtained under Rule 3 of the National Highways Rules, 1957 before issuing the Section 3-A notification. The respondents argued that the NH Act is a special law and prevails over the 2013 Act, and that the Removal of Difficulties Order is valid. The court analyzed the legislative scheme, noting that the NH Act is a complete code for land acquisition for national highways and that the 2013 Act itself recognizes the NH Act as a special law. The court held that the NH Act provisions are not unconstitutional and that the Removal of Difficulties Order is valid. Regarding technical approval, the court held that it is an internal matter and not a condition precedent for the Section 3-A notification. The court also held that the acquisition is for a public purpose. Consequently, the court dismissed all three writ petitions, upholding the acquisition proceedings.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Land Acquisition - Validity of NH Act provisions - Challenge to Sections 3-A, 3-D, 3-G of National Highways Act, 1956 and Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015 - Petitioners contended that NH Act provisions are unconstitutional and that acquisition should be under the 2013 Act - Court held that NH Act is a special law and prevails over the 2013 Act; Removal of Difficulties Order is valid and intra vires - Held that the NH Act provisions are not unconstitutional (Paras 1-50). B) Administrative Law - Technical Approval - Requirement under Rule 3 of National Highways Rules, 1957 - Petitioners argued that no technical approval was obtained before issuing Section 3-A notification - Court held that technical approval is an internal matter and not a condition precedent for issuing notification under Section 3-A of NH Act - Held that the notification is valid (Paras 51-60). C) Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - Highway widening - Acquisition for four-laning of NH744 - Petitioners claimed that the acquisition is not for public purpose but for private benefit - Court held that widening of national highway is a public purpose and acquisition is valid - Held that the project is for public benefit (Paras 61-70).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 relating to land acquisition and the Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015 are unconstitutional; whether the impugned notifications under Sections 3-A and 3-D of the NH Act are valid; whether the acquisition should be under the 2013 Act instead of the NH Act.
Final Decision
All three writ petitions are dismissed. The impugned notifications under Sections 3-A, 3-D, and 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 are upheld. The Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015 is held valid. No costs.
Law Points
- National Highways Act
- 1956 is a special law and prevails over the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Removal of Difficulties Order
- 2015 is valid
- Section 3-A notification under NH Act is valid even if technical approval under NH Rules
- 1957 is not obtained prior
- Land acquisition for highway widening is a public purpose
