HC declares National Highways Act provision unconstitutional
CHENNAI: The Madras high court has declared Section 3-J of the National Highways Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997, unconstitutional.
Passing a common order on a batch of writ petitions which raised the common question of law and facts, Justice Vinod K Sharma stated that the provision (Section 3-J) was unconstitutional as it was hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.
Article 14 says the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. In their petition, T Chakrapani and six others had contended that Section 3-J of the National Highways Act says that no provision of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will apply to any acquisition carried out under the 1997 Act.
While several terms of both laws were similar, the petitioners' counsel argued that Section 3-J was inserted with the sole objective of denying solatium and interest payable [under the Act] for compulsory acquisition. Elaborating their stand, counsel cited previous judgments to highlight the fact that the process of acquiring land be it for a highway or any other purpose could not be governed by two different laws, one saying solatium be payed and the other eliminating the clause altogether.
A judgment from the High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Golden Iron & Steel vs Union of India) on March 28, 2008, quoted by counsel, read: "Solatium is not a largesse or a mere subsidy that the state doles out to a hapless landowner in discharge of some benevolent exercise of governmental power. Solatium is an amount, paid by the state to an unwilling land owner, for compulsory appropriation of his property. The word solatium draws its meaning from the word solace' that is comfort money given as a statutorily recognised gesture of conciliation for compulsorily depriving a land owner of his property. The importance of solatium' cannot be overemphasised and any departure therefrom would, in our considered opinion, be justified only where the enactment discloses a reasonable classification for treating land owners differently."
Drawing conclusions from various other judgments on the issue, Justice Sharma ordered that "it leaves no manner of doubt that Section 3-J results in discrimination to the land owners whose land is acquired under this Act ( NHA Act, 1997) with those land owners where land is acquired for public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984." The petitioners would therefore be entitled to compensation of additional market value, solatium and interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, the order added.
No comments:
Post a Comment