The Supreme Court today urged the Union government to make suitable amendments to the National Highways Act, 1956, so that land acquisition compensation disputes are decided by 'judicially trained minds' and not government officers. A Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan was hearing a batch of SLPs that arose from the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, which declared Sections 3G and 3J of the National Highways Act unconstitutional. These provisions constitute the statutory framework for determining compensation through arbitration when landowners dispute the amount awarded.
The Court noted a significant disparity between landowners whose lands were acquired under the NH Act vis-a-vis those whose lands are acquired under other statutes. Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Old Act) and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (new Act), compensation disputes are decided by judicial courts with expertise and independence to fairly determine market value. They also have more liberal appellate remedies. In contrast, under the National Highways Act, compensation disputes are decided by government officers like Collectors or Commissioners, not judicial authorities, who are often burdened with administrative duties and lack judicial training to decide complex valuation issues.
The Court observed that the present framework appeared to place landowners at a systemic disadvantage in proceedings under the National Highways Act. CJI Kant stated that entrustment of compensation disputes arising out of the NH Act to bureaucrats is prima facie not acceptable. The Bench noted that properties situated along national highways generally have greater market value, making fair determination of compensation particularly significant. Chief Justice Kant also mentioned that the Supreme Court had previously been required to intervene in cases where landowners were denied statutory benefits such as solatium and interest under the National Highways Act, with CJI Kant commenting that 'injustice' was done to farmers which ultimately had to be rectified through judicial intervention.
Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Centre, informed the Bench that the government is 'seriously considering amendment to the Act' and if the same are carried out, pending cases would be taken care of. Justice Bagchi observed that the government is considering amendments to the National Highways Act to ensure that compensation disputes are decided by a judicially trained adjudicatory forum. Taking note of the submission, the Court indicated it would welcome the proposed amendment if the Government is examining the issue. The Court had earlier suggested that the Union government should revisit the legislative scheme and consider bringing parity in the method of compensation determination, keeping in view Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects the right to property.
