Madras High Court
G.Kesavan vs The Union Of India on 30 January, 2025
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 10.07.2024
Pronounced on : 30.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.13609, 13610, 13611, 13614
and 5185 of 2021 and 21310 of 2022
and 1235, 1239 and 11333 of 2024
W.P.(MD).No.6727 of 2021
1. G.Kesavan
2. S.G.Seenivasagan
3. Vijayalakshmi
4. Amutha ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Shipping,
Road Transport and Highways,
New Delhi.
2. The Competent Authority and
District Revenue Officer,
(Road Transport Highways)
Thirumangalam-Rajapalayam Four Lane Project,
Madurai Collectorate Office,
Madurai.
3. The Project Director
Project Implementation Unit,
1/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
National Highways Authority of India,
Madurai.
4. National Highway Authority of India
Rep. by its Chairman,
G5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110 075. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking (i) to issue a writ of declaration, declaring the provisions of the NH
Act, 1956 in so far as relating to Land Acquisition are concerned and the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015,
dated 28.08.2015 issued by the first respondent u/s 113(1) of The Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 are unconstitutional and void.
(ii) to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the issue of
the impugned orders, viz., Notification issued u/s 3-A(1) of NH Act, 1956
issued in S.O.No.3280(E) dated 24.09.2020 by the first respondent and
published in Government of India Gazette Extraordinary No.2932 Part-II-
Sec.3(ii) dated 24.09.2020 and the Declarations u/s 3-D (1&2) of NH Act,
1956 issued by the first respondent in Notification dated 29.01.2021 issued
in S.O.470(E) published in Government of India Gazette Extraordinary Part-
II Sec.3(ii) No.433, dated 29.01.2021 and the Notice u/s. 3-G(3) of NH Act,
1956, dated 19.02.2021 issued by the second respondent and published in
the Hindu News Paper dated 19.02.2021 and quash the same.
(iii) consequently to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
accord proper technical approval to the detailed estimate for the proposal of
2/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
4 lane widening of NH744 as per the technical standards as per Rule 3 of
NH Rules, 1957 and thereafter to initiate the Land Acquisition process as
per 2013 Central Act.
W.P.(MD).No.16710 of 2021
S.Seetha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Shipping,
Road Transport and Highways,
New Delhi.
2. The Competent Authority and
District Revenue Officer,
(Road Transport Highways)
Thirumangalam-Rajapalayam Four Lane Project,
Soolakkarai, Virudhunagar.
3. The Project Director
Project Implementation Unit,
National Highways Authority of India,
Madurai.
4. National Highway Authority of India
Rep. by its Chairman,
G 5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110 075. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking (i) to issue a writ of declaration, declaring the provisions of the NH
3/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
Act, 1956 in so far as relating to Land Acquisition are concerned and the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015,
dated 28.08.2015 issued by the first respondent u/s 113(1) of The Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 are unconstitutional and void.
(ii) to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the issue of
the impugned orders, viz., Notification issued u/s 3-A(1) of NH Act, 1956
issued in S.O.No.3279(E) dated 24.09.2020 published in Government of
India Gazette Extraordinary No.2931 Part-II-Sec.3(ii) dated 24.09.2020 by
the first respondent; and consequent 3D notification issued in its
Notification No.127 published on 13.01.2021 under notification_id=40032
in the fourth Respondent's website and Notification u/s. 3-G(3) of NH Act,
1956 published in Dinakaran News Paper dated 24.02.2021 and quash the
same.
(iii) consequently to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
accord proper technical approval to the detailed estimate for the proposal of
4 lane widening of NH744 as per the technical standards as per Rule 3 of
NH Rules, 1957 and thereafter to initiate the Land Acquisition process as
per 2013 Central Act.
W.P.(MD).No.16711 of 2021
Subburaaj Cotton Mill (P) Ltd.,
Rep. by its Manager,
4/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
1109, Srivilliputtur Road,
Rajapalayam - 626 117,
Virudhunagar District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Union of India
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Shipping,
Road Transport and Highways,
New Delhi.
2. The Competent Authority and
District Revenue Officer,
(Road Transport Highways)
Thirumangalam-Rajapalayam Four Lane Project,
Soolakkarai, Virudhunagar.
3. The Project Director
Project Implementation Unit,
National Highways Authority of India,
Madurai.
4. National Highway Authority of India
Rep. by its Chairman,
G 5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi - 110 075. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking (i) to issue a writ of declaration, declaring the provisions of the NH
Act, 1956 in so far as relating to Land Acquisition are concerned and the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015,
dated 28.08.2015 issued by the first respondent u/s 113(1) of The Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
5/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
and Resettlement Act, 2013 are unconstitutional and void.
(ii) to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the issue of
the impugned orders, viz., Notification issued u/s 3-A(1) of NH Act, 1956
issued in S.O.No.3279(E) dated 24.09.2020 published in Government of
India Gazette Extraordinary No.2931 Part-II-Sec.3(ii) dated 24.09.2020 by
the first respondent; and consequent 3D notification issued in its
Notification No.127 published on 13.01.2021 under notification_id=40032
in the fourth Respondent's website and Notification u/s. 3-G(3) of NH Act,
1956 published in Dinakaran News Paper dated 24.02.2021 and quash the
same.
(iii) consequently to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to
accord proper technical approval to the detailed estimate for the proposal of
4 lane widening of NH744 as per the technical standards as per Rule 3 of
NH Rules, 1957 and thereafter to initiate the Land Acquisition process as
per 2013 Central Act.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Subramaniyan
in W.P.(MD).No.6727 of 2021
Mr.R.Vidhya
in W.P.(MD).Nos.16710 and 16711
of 2021
For Respondents : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, ASG
for Mr.S.Jeyasingh for R1
in W.P.(MD).No.6727 of 2021
and for Mr.M.Ashok Kumar for R1
in W.P.(MD).Nos.16710
and 16711 of 2021
Mr.N.Satheesh Kumar, AGP
6/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
for R2 in all the writ petitions
Mr.K.Govindarajan, DSG
for Mr.P.Karthick for R3 and R4
in all the writ petitions
COMMON ORDER
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
Though these three writ petitions were filed independently by three
different writ petitioners, in view of the prayer that has been sought in these
writ petitions which is one and the same and the issue raised in these writ
petitions is a common one, all these three writ petitions were heard together
and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The facts in nutshell which are required to be noticed for the
disposal of these writ petitions are as follows :
(i) The first respondent had issued a notification under Section
3-(A)(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, in short “the Highways Act”
in the Gazette of India Publication, dated 24.09.2020 for the intention of the
Government to acquire land for laying or expansion of four lane in National
Highways 744.
7/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
(ii) Subsequently, notification under Section 3-(D)(1) and (2) of the
Highways Act was published in the Gazette of India dated 29.01.2021 and
the notice under Section 3-(G)(3) of the Highways Act also have been
published in the newspaper on 19.02.2021.
(iii) In order to challenge all these notifications, these writ petitioners
had chosen to file these writ petitions, however with the prayer primarily to
seek to declare the various provisions of the Highways Act insofar as
relating to land acquisition are concerned as well as the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order 2015, dated 28.08.2015 issued
by the first respondent under Section 113(1) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, herein after referred to as “the 2013 Act” are
unconstitutional and void.
(iv) Therefore with these prayers of writ of declaration to seek
declaration of those provisions of the Highways Act as well as the
8/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
28.08.2015 order issued by the Central Government as null and void and
also the consequential prayers to quash the notification issued by the first
respondent under Section 3-(A)(1) and the notification issued under Section
3-(D)(1) and (2) and Section 3-(G)(3) under the Highways Act of the first
respondent all these writ petitions were filed.
3. The challenge that has been made in these writ petitions, according
to the petitioners counsel Mr.N.Subramaniyan and Ms.R.Vidhya, are in two
fold.
4. In the first fold, the challenge is in respect of the provisions of the
Highways Act, i.e., from Sections 3-A to 3-J which are all the provisions
relates to land acquisition available in the Highways Act. The second fold of
the challenge relates to various notifications issued by the first respondent
under Section 3-A(1), 3-D(1) and (2) and 3-G(3) of the Highways Act.
5. In respect of the first fold of the challenge, the ground raised by the
petitioners is that, Section 3-A to 3-J of the Highways Act get lapsed or
repealed on 01.10.2015 as the first respondent failed to place any draft
9/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
notification before Parliament, got it approved and notified as amended
provided under Section 105(3) r/w 105(1) of the 2013 Act.
6. The grounds urged on behalf of the petitioners to make the
challenge of the first fold is that, Section 105(3) of the 2013 Act provided
for issuing notification to make the provisions of the Act relating to the
determination of the compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement
applicable to cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the
Fourth Schedule to the 2013 Act.
7. Such a notification since have to be issued by the Central
Government within a period of one year from the date of the 2013 Act,
comes into force and the 2013 Act came into force from 01.01.2014,
therefore on or before 31.12.2014, such a notification under Section 105(3)
of the 2013 Act should have been issued. Since the same has not been
issued and even the 2013 (Amendment) Ordinance 2014, i.e., Ordinance
(9 of 2014) though was promulgated on 31.12.2014, amending Section 105
of the 2013 Act to extend the provisions of the Act relating to the
determination of the compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to cases
10/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
of land acquisition under the enactments specified in Fourth Schedule of the
2013 Act and the 2015 Ordinance, i.e., Ordinance (4 of 2015) also was
promulgated and the 2015 (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, i.e.,
Ordinance (5 of 2015) also was promulgated respectively on 03.04.2015
and 30.05.2015 to give continuity to the provisions Act 4 of 2015 and the
bill replacing such an Ordinance was referred to the Joint Committee of
Parliament for examination and since the same was pending with the Joint
Committee and in view of the provisions of Article 123 of the Constitution,
the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Second Ordinance 2015, i.e., (5 of 2015)
since would be lapsed on 31st day of 2015, thereby the land owners would
be put under disadvantageous position thereby resulting in denial of benefits
of enhanced compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement to the cases
of land acquisition under the 13 Acts specified in the Fourth Schedule of
2013 Act as extended to the land owners under the said Ordinance. The first
respondent had come forward to extend the benefits available to the land
owners under the 2013 Act to the similarly placed land owners, whose lands
are acquired under the 13 enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule of
the 2013 Act.
11/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
8. Therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1)
of Section 113 of the 2013 Act, the Central Government made the order to
remove the difficulties, thereby the order issued in this regard on
28.08.2015 by the first respondent / Central Government under the removal
of difficulties provision, i.e., Section 113(1) of the Act would not in any
way rectify the defect of mandatory requirement of issuance of notification
under Section 105(3) of the 2013 Act. Therefore the provisions of the
Highways Act, 1956, which is one of the 13 legislation in the Fourth
Schedule would get automatically repealed, thereby the acquisition
proceedings that has been taken by issuance of notification under Section 3-
A(1) as well as the notification issued under Section 3-D(1) and (2) and the
notice issued under Section 3-G(3) of the Highways Act all become void ab
initio and therefore these land acquisition proceedings shall be declared as
unconstitutional, was the case projected on behalf of the petitioners by
Mr.M.Subramaniyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
9. In support of his contention, he has further stated that, the power
to remove difficulties could be invoked only to remove unforeseen
difficulties that may arise in implementation of the provisions of the Act and
12/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
that too not to be inconsistent with any provisions of the Act. The difficulty
shall be the one arising by giving effect to the provisions of the Act and not
for the extraneous difficulty. In support of this contention, he relied upon
Madeva Upendra Sinai v. Union of India, reported in (1975) 3 SCC 765.
10. He would also submit that, the power under Section 113 shall not
be used to violate any provision of the Act as well as to conjure or
overcome its omission it had committed. In support of his contention, he
relied upon State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar Das and others,
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1382.
11. He would also submit that, Section 105(1) of the 2013 Act
mandates the Central Government to issue, within one year, a notification
under sub-section (3) of Section 105 following the procedure under Section
105(4). According to which, a draft notification was to be presented before
each house of the Parliament who may reject it or modify it, of course by
not diluting the provisions relating to compensation or rehabilitation and
resettlement as mandated under Section 105(3). Therefore the ultimate
decision is left to be taken by the Parliament either to continue the Fourth
Schedule Acts independently or to apply 2013 Act for the land acquisition
for the public purposes coming under the Fourth Schedule Acts with even
13/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
enhancing the compensation but not diluting the compensation provisions.
Therefore according to him, the power to take a decision in this regard vest
with the Parliament and not with the Executive who even may provide still
higher compensation.
12. He would also urge the point that, Section 105(4) of the 2013 Act
mandates the Parliament to decide the notification required under Section
105(3) but by the impugned notification under Section 113, the first
respondent usurped the power of the Parliament which is a colourable
exercise of power by the first respondent invoking Section 113 unlawfully.
13. He would also submit that, as the first respondent / Central
Government failed to issue the notification as mandated under Section
105(3) of the 2013 Act within one year, i.e., before 01.01.2015, from which
date, the land acquisition provisions of all the Fourth Schedule Acts stand
wiped out or repealed as per Section 105(1) of the 2013 Act and henceforth
all the provisions of the 2013 Act became applicable to the land acquisition
for the public purposes coming under the Fourth Schedule.
14/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
14. Therefore he would submit that, after one year since the impugned
order, dated 28.08.2015 was issued under Section 113 of the 2013 Act
seeking to undo the mandate of Section 105(1) of the Act, which infact had
already wiped out the land acquisition provisions under the Fourth Schedule
Act. Therefore the impugned order is to undo the result of the
implementation of the main provision of the 2013 Act, thereby the
notification became ultra vires of Section 113 of the 2013 Act.
15. He would also submit that, it is a rudimentary principle of law
that power to remove difficulties clause cannot be used to violate the
provisions of the Act or to undo the result of the implementation of the main
provisions of the Act and hence, the notification dated 28.08.2015 is ultra
vires to Section 113 of the Act. Therefore it is a colourable exercise of
power by the first respondent with whom such a power since has not been
vested with, therefore it is ab initio, void, hence it is liable to be declared so.
16. Apart from these main grounds urged by him, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners would also canvass the point that, a detailed
project report has not been received by the first respondent before issuing
the notification and when the wide and width of the proposed four lane road
15/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
project since has been reduced, no statistics has been taken as to how much
of land now is required for the expansion of the four lane by reducing the
width and wide of the road and whether such a reduction is in consonance
with the technical feasibility as provided under the Indian Road Congress
are all the matters to be gone into. Therefore technically the entire project is
not in consonance with law and therefore for the purpose of such a project,
the proposed land acquisition made by the first respondent by issuing
notifications under the provisions of the 1956 Highways Act is totally
unlawful, hence the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
canvass the point that, for all these reasons the combined prayer sought for
in these writ petitions are to be considered and allowed.
17. Per contra, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the respondents assisted by Mr.K.Govindarajan,
learned Deputy Solicitor General would submit that, the 2013 Act came into
effect from 01.01.2014, therefore within one year, i.e., before 01.01.2015
notification under Section 105(3) of the 2013 Act should be issued.
However, the Central Government has expressed in detail in its order, i.e.,
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
16/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order 2015, in
short, “the 2015 Order”, the reasons as to why the Central Government has
invoked the power under Section 113 of the Act instead of 105(3) of the Act
for issuance of such a notification.
18. The learned Additional Solicitor General would also submit that,
the 2015 Order issued under Section 113 of the Act infact has fulfilled the
obligation on the part of the Central Government to issue notification under
Section 105(3) of the Act. This position has been supported by the law
declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mahanadhi Coal
Fields Ltd., and others V. Mathias Oram and others reported in AIR 2022
SC 5723. He would also rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in (2019) 9 SCC 304 in the matter of Union of India and another v.
Tarsem Singh and others.
19. The learned Additional Solicitor General would further submit
that, insofar as Section 105 of the 2013 Act under sub-section (1), it makes
very clear that, the entire provisions of the 2013 Act shall not apply to the
enactments relating to the land acquisition specified under Fourth Schedule.
17/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
There are 13 enactments inserted in the Fourth Schedule and in respect of
those 13 Acts, the provisions of 2013 Act would not be applied, however, it
is subject to sub-section 3.
20. Sub-section (3) mandates that the Central Government shall by
notification within one year from the date of commencement of the Act
direct that, any of the provisions of these Act relating to the determination
of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation
and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules being
beneficial to the affected families shall apply to the cases of land acquisition
under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with
such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or
dilute the provisions of the Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation
and resettlement as may be specified in the notification as the case may be.
21. Therefore he would submit that, Section 105(1) is the rule, where
sub-section (3) is an exemption. If a notification is issued under sub-section
(3), insofar as the provisions of 2013 Act with regard to determination of
compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement are concerned, the provisions
18/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
of 2013 Act would apply. In this context, he would further submit that, even
if such a notification is issued under Section 105(3) of the 2013 Act, that
would not replace the entire provisions of the 13 enactments including the
Highways Act 1956 from the purview of 2013 Act. Only in respect of
determination of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement are
concerned that could be saved by applying the provisions of 2013 Act.
22. In respect of acquisition are concerned, the Fourth Schedule Acts
would prevail upon. In other words, for instance, the 1956 National
Highways Act is concerned, the land acquisition provisions of the said Act
would continue to prevail. However, the determination of compensation
under First Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement specified in Second
and Third Schedules alone would be saved by provisions of sub-section 3 of
Section 105 by issuance of such notification.
23. Therefore the learned Additional Solicitor General would submit
that, if this purpose is fulfilled by issuance of notification under Section 113
of 2013 Act, that would serve the entire purpose, which position has been
clearly supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
19/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
Mahanadi’s case (cited supra). Therefore the learned Additional Solicitor
General would contend that, the entire grounds that has been urged on
behalf of the writ petitioners that, the provisions of the Highways Act with
regard to the land acquisition and the notification dated 28.08.2015 issued
by the first respondent under Section 113 of the 2013 Act are to be declared
void and unconstitutional and consequently, set aside the land acquisition
notification, will have no legs to stand as the grounds urged by the
petitioners side would not stand in the legal scrutiny in view of the clear
provisions which are available both under the 2013 Act as well as the 1956
Highways Act, hence the learned Additional Solicitor General would
contend that, the writ petitions are liable to be rejected.
24. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for both sides and have perused the materials placed
before this Court.
25. We have shown our anxious consideration to the points that has
been raised in these writ petitions mainly on the ground that, whether the
1956 Highways Act would get lapsed or stand repealed because of the non
issuance of the notification under Section 105(3) of the 2013 Act of the
20/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
Central Government or not ?
26. In order to delve into the issue which is the core issue that has
been raised in these writ petitions, first let us look at the provisions of the
relevant enactments.
27. The National Highways Act, 1956 has come into effect from
15.04.1957, since then, it has been in the field, where the land acquisition
for the purpose of National Highways are being undertaken only under the
provisions of the Highways Act, 1956.
28. Though various aspects have been provided under the Highways
Act, 1956, we are concerned only with the relevant provisions relates to the
land acquisition, which has been dealt with from Sections 3-A to 3-J.
29. Section 3-A deals with the power to acquire land etc., whereas
Section 3-B deals with the power to enter for survey, etc. Section 3-C
provides for hearing of objections and Section 3-D provides for declaration
of acquisition. Like that, Section 3-E deals with the power to take
possession and Section 3-F deals with the right to enter into the land where
21/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
land is vested in the Central Government. Section 3-G enables the
determination of amount payable as compensation and Section 3-H deals
with the deposit and payment of amount. Section 3-I deals with the
provision of competent authority to have certain powers of Civil Court and
Section 3-J makes it clear that 1894 Land Acquisition Act shall not apply to
acquisition under the 1956 Act.
30. Therefore these are all the provisions which are available in the
National Highways Act, 1956 relates to land acquisition. Now the challenge
seeking such a declaration in these writ petitions is to declare all these
provisions of the 1956 Act as void and unconstitutional.
31. For seeking such a declaration on behalf of the petitioners, the
ground urged by them is that, the 2013 Act has come into effect from
01.01.2014, where under Section 105(1), it has been declared that, the
provisions of the 2013 Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land
acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule. This is subject to sub-section
(3). What has been stated in sub-section (3) has already been discussed,
where the Central Government shall issue a notification within one year
22/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
from the date of commencement of the Act, whereby the provisions of the
2013 Act relating to determination of compensation in accordance with the
First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in Second and
Third Schedules respectively being beneficial to the affected families shall
apply to cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the
Fourth Schedule.
32. What are all the enactments that has to be specified have been
given in the Fourth Schedule. The Fourth Schedule consist of 13 enactments
which includes the National Highways Act, 1956.
33. Therefore as per Section 105(1) of the 2013 Act, the provisions of
2013 Act would not apply to any of these 13 enactments which are form
part of the Fourth Schedule of 2013 Act. However, if a notification is issued
by the Central Government under sub-section (3) of Section 105, insofar as
the determination of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement as
provided under First, Second and Third Schedule of 2013 Act would be
saved.
34. Here in the case in hand, whether such a notification has been
issued in the eye of law or not. Admittedly no such notification under
23/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
Section 105(3) of the Act 2013 has been issued, as, such a notification
ought to have been issued within one year period, i.e., on or before
31.12.2014.
35. In order to overcome this difficulty, the Central Government has
taken various steps legislatively which has been stated in the 2015 order,
dated 28.08.2015. The first step that was taken by the Central Government
is to issue an Ordinance, i.e., called RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance
2014 (9 of 2014) which was promulgated on 31.12.2014, thereby inter alia
amending Section 105 of the RFCTLARR Act to extend the provisions of
the Act relating to the determination of the compensation and rehabilitation
and resettlement to cases of land acquisition under the enactment specified
in the Fourth Schedule to the RFCTLARR Act.
36. Subsequently, the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015
(4 of 2015) was promulgated on 03.04.2015 to give continuity to the
provisions of RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014. Thereafter,
RFCTLARR (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 (5 of 2015) was
promulgated on 30.05.2015 to give continuity to the provisions of
24/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance 2015, i.e, (4 of 2015). The
replacement bill relating to RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015,
i.e., (4 of 2015) was referred to joint committee of the House of Parliament
for examination and report and the same was pending with the Joint
Committee. However, as per the provisions of Article 123 of the
Constitution, the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Second Ordinance 2015, i.e.,
(5 of 2015) since would be lapsed by 31.08.2015 and in such a case, it
would place the land owners at the disadvantageous position which result in
denial of benefits of enhanced compensation and rehabilitation and
resettlement to the cases of land acquisition under the 13 Acts specified in
the Fourth Schedule to the RFCTLARR Act as extended to the land owners
under the said Ordinance.
37. Therefore the Central Government considered it necessary to
extend the benefits available to the land owners under the 2013 Act to
similarly placed land owners whose lands are acquired under the 13
enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule. Therefore the Government in
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 113 of the
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
25/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 issued the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order 2015, which came into force
with effect from 01.09.2015, thereby the provisions of the 2013 Act relating
to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule,
rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the Second Schedule and
infrastructure amenities in accordance with the Third Schedule shall apply
to all cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth
Schedule of the 2013 Act.
38. Whether this notification or order issued by the Central
Government on 28.08.2015, w.e.f., 01.09.2015 under Section 113 (1) of the
Act, would validate the applicability of the 2013 Act provisions insofar as
the determination of compensation, resettlement, rehabilitation etc., to all
other acquisition that has been made under the provisions of various
enactments of the Fourth Schedule of the 2013 Act or not is the question.
39. In this context, even though it was argued on behalf of the
petitioners that, if a power is vested with the authority, i.e., Central
26/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
Government to exercise by issuance of a notification under Section 105(3)
of the Act, such a notification must have been issued within one year period
as mandated under sub-section (3) of Section 105 and in failure to make
such a notification would render that, the Fourth Schedule enactments
would be lapsed or repealed by inherent repealing, was the main contention
of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
40. The said contention of the petitioners side is palpably wrong. The
reason being that, Section 105(1) makes it very clear that provisions of 2013
Act shall not apply to the enactment relating to the land acquisition
specified in the Fourth Schedule, that means, none of the provisions of 2013
Act would apply to the 13 enactments which are form part of the Fourth
Schedule. However, there is one exception under which if Central
Government issues a notification under sub-section (3) of Section 105
making the applicability of the provisions of the 2013 Act relating to
determination of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement being the
beneficial to the affected families, that aspect of the 2013 Act shall be
applied to the land acquisition proceedings being made under the provisions
of various enactments of Fourth Schedule which includes the 1956 National
27/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
41. Assuming that there has been no notification under Section
105(3) of the 2013 Act, all the provisions of the 1956 Act would get
repealed would be an absurd argument made on behalf of the petitioners
side because, if no notification is issued under sub-section (3) of Section
105, the 1956 Highways Act which is one of the 13 enactments also would
get saved without being affected by any provisions of the 2013 Act, thereby
the higher compensation, the provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement,
nothing would be made applicable to the land owners whose lands are
acquired under the 1956 Act.
42. In this context, it is to be looked into the very objects and reasons
that has been stated for bringing 2013 Act.
43. The elaborate objects and reasons has made it clear that, in order
to give a complete, full and adequate compensation and also to make the
scheme for resettlement and rehabilitation of those land owners whose lands
are acquired under the 2013 Act these are all the provisions which are
28/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
required in the modern days in the land acquisition arena, that is the reason
why 2013 Act has been brought into force by replacing the 1894 Land
Acquisition Act.
44. While that being so, under the Fourth Schedule, 13 enactments
though had been exempted by sub-section (1) of Section 105 of the Act
stating that the provisions of the Act shall not apply to the enactments
relating to the land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule, the
legislature thought it fit to make it very clear that, notification under sub-
section (3) shall be issued by the Central Government within one year
period from the date of commencement of the Act, whereby the First
Schedule provisions, Second Schedule provisions and Third Schedule
provisions relates to determination of compensation as well as rehabilitation
and resettlement shall be made applicable as a beneficial to the affected
families of land acquisition under the enactments of the Fourth Schedule.
45. This is the main object of the legislature, thereby, they though had
given an exemption to the 13 enactments which are provided under the
Fourth Schedule, very consciously about the determination of
29/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement which are beneficial in nature
shall be equally extended to the similarly placed persons whose lands have
been acquired under the various enactments under the Fourth Schedule
other than the 2013 Act to get such benefits which are equal to the
beneficiaries of 2013 Act. These are the prime objects under which the
provisions of Section 105 was made in the 2013 Act which cannot be
defeated by simply stating that the Central Government has not issued a
notification under Section 105(3) of the Act within a one year period.
46. Even though in this context, the Central Government has made
sincere attempts to issue Ordinances as has been detailed above, such of
those Ordinances since have lapsed in view of the constitutional provision
and since the issue had been referred to the joint committee of the
Parliament where the issue was pending and in the meanwhile since the
exemption period under the Ordinance was going to be lapsed, the Central
Government thought it fit to remove the difficulty, has invoked the
provisions of 113(1) of the 2013 Act which makes it very clear that, if any
difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this part, the Central
30/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
Government, may by order makes such provisions or give such directions
not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as may appear to it necessary
or expedient for the removal of the difficulty, but even such exercise shall
be made within two years period.
47. Therefore it was a compulsory situation under which the Central
Government must have invoked the provisions of Section 113(1) of the
2013 Act and thereby to issue an order to save the provisions of the 2013
Act to be made applicable to the land acquisition proceedings made under
various enactments of the Fourth Schedule.
48. This exercise is an inevitable one and such a mandatory exercise
should have been undertaken by the Central Government and it has rightly
exercised by issuing the order under Section 113(1) of the Act on
28.08.2015.
49. In this context, whether such a exercise of the Central
Government in invoking Section 113(1) of the Act for issuance of the order
2015 instead of issuing a notification under Section 105(3) of the Act would
be a justifiable one or not also has already been answered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court.
31/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
50. To delve into the issue further, the relevant decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court can be usefully referred to hereunder.
51. In Union of India v. Tarsem Singh reported in (2019) 9 SC 304,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held so in paragraph 46 to 48 which reads
thus :
“46. It is worthy of note that even in acquisitions that
take place under the National Highways Act and the
1952 Act, the notification of 2015 under the new
Acquisition Act of 2013 makes solatium and interest
payable in cases covered by both Acts. In fact, with
effect from 1-1-2015, Amendment Ordinance 9 of
2014 was promulgated amending the 2013 Act.
Section 10 of the said Amendment Ordinance states
as follows:
“10. In the principal Act, in Section 105—
(i) for sub-section (3), the following sub-section
shall be substituted, namely—
‘(3) The provisions of this Act relating to the
determination of compensation in accordance
with the First Schedule, rehabilitation and
resettlement in accordance with the Second
Schedule and infrastructure amenities in
accordance with the Third Schedule shall apply32/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021to the enactments relating to land acquisition
specified in the Fourth Schedule with effect
from 1-1-2015;’
(ii) sub-section (4) shall be omitted.”
47. It is only when this Ordinance lapsed that the
Notification dated 28-8-2015 was then made under
Section 113 of the 2013 Act. This notification is
important and states as follows:
“MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
ORDERNew Delhi, 28-8-2015
S.O. 2368(E).—Whereas, the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (30 of 2013) (hereinafter referred to
as “the RFCTLARR Act”) came into effect from
1-1-2014;
And whereas, sub-section (3) of Section 105 of
the RFCTLARR Act provided for issuing of
notification to make the provisions of the Act
relating to the determination of the
compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement
applicable to cases of land acquisition under the
enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule to
the RFCTLARR Act;
33/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021And whereas, the notification envisaged under
sub-section (3) of Section 105 of the RFCTLARR
Act was not issued, and the RFCTLARR
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 (9 of 2014) was
promulgated on 31-12-2014, thereby, inter alia,
amending Section 105 of the RFCTLARR Act to
extend the provisions of the Act relating to the
determination of the compensation and
rehabilitation and resettlement to cases of land
acquisition under the enactments specified in the
Fourth Schedule to the RFCTLARR Act;
And whereas, the RFCTLARR (Amendment)
Ordinance, 2015 (4 of 2015) was promulgated
on 3-4-2015 to give continuity to the provisions
of the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014;
And whereas, the RFCTLARR (Amendment)
Second Ordinance, 2015 (5 of 2015) was
promulgated on 30-5-2015 to give continuity to
the provisions of the RFCTLARR (Amendment)
Ordinance, 2015 (4 of 2015);
And whereas, the replacement Bill relating to
the RFCTLARR (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 (4
of 2015) was referred to the Joint Committee of
the Houses for examination and report and the
same is pending with the Joint Committee;
34/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021And whereas, as per the provisions of Article
123 of the Constitution, the RFCTLARR
(Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 (5 of
2015) shall lapse on the 31st day of August,
2015 and thereby placing the landowners at the
disadvantageous position, resulting in denial of
benefits of enhanced compensation and
rehabilitation and resettlement to the cases of
land acquisition under the 13 Acts specified in
the Fourth Schedule to the RFCTLARR Act as
extended to the landowners under the said
Ordinance;
And whereas, the Central Government
considers it necessary to extend the benefits
available to the landowners under the
RFCTLARRAct to similarly placed landowners
whose lands are acquired under the 13
enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule;
and accordingly the Central Government
keeping in view the aforesaid difficulties has
decided to extend the beneficial advantage to the
landowners and uniformly apply the beneficial
provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, relating to the
determination of compensation and
rehabilitation and resettlement as were made35/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021applicable to cases of land acquisition under the
said enactments in the interest of the
landowners;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers
conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 113 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30
of 2013), the Central Government hereby makes
the following Order to remove the aforesaid
difficulties, namely:
1. (1) This Order may be called the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015.
(2) It shall come into force with effect from the
1st day of September, 2015.
2. The provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013, relating to the determination of
compensation in accordance with the First
Schedule, rehabilitation and resettlement in
accordance with the Second Schedule and
infrastructure amenities in accordance with the
36/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
Third Schedule shall apply to all cases of land
acquisition under the enactments specified in the
Fourth Schedule to the said Act.
[F. No. 13011/01/2014-LRD]
K.P. Krishnan, Addl. Secy.”
48. It is thus clear that the Ordinance as well as the
notification have applied the principle contained in
Nagpur Improvement Trust [Nagpur Improvement
Trust v. Vithal Rao, (1973) 1 SCC 500] , as the
Central Government has considered it necessary to
extend the benefits available to landowners generally
under the 2013 Act to similarly placed landowners
whose lands are acquired under the 13 enactments
specified in the Fourth Schedule, the National
Highways Act being one of the aforesaid enactments.
This being the case, it is clear that the Government
has itself accepted that the principle of Nagpur
Improvement Trust [Nagpur Improvement Trust
v.Vithal Rao, (1973) 1 SCC 500] would apply to
acquisitions which take place under the National
Highways Act, and that solatium and interest would
be payable under the 2013 Act to persons whose
lands are acquired for the purpose of National
Highways as they are similarly placed to those
landowners whose lands have been acquired for
37/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
other public purposes under the 2013 Act. This being
the case, it is clear that even the Government is of
the view that it is not possible to discriminate
between landowners covered by the 2013 Act and
landowners covered by the National Highways Act,
when it comes to compensation to be paid for lands
acquired under either of the enactments. The
judgments delivered under the 1952 Act as well as
the Defence of India Act, 1971, may, therefore,
require a re-look in the light of this development.
[ The Defence of India Act, 1971, was a temporary
statute which remained in force only during the
period of operation of a proclamation of emergency
and for a period of six months thereafter — vide
Section 1(3) of the Act. As this Act has since
expired, it is not included in the Fourth Schedule of
the 2013 Act.] In any case, as has been pointed out
hereinabove, Chajju Ram [Union of India v. Chajju
Ram, (2003) 5 SCC 568] , has been referred to a
larger Bench. In this view of the matter, we are of the
view that the view of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court [Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, 2018 SCC
OnLine P&H 6036], [Jang Bahadur v. Union of
India, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 6034], [Union of
India v. Abhinav Cotspin Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine
38/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
P&H 19319] is correct, whereas the view of the
Rajasthan High Court [Banshilal Samariya v. Union
of India, 2005 SCC OnLine Raj 572 : 2005-06 Supp
RLW 559] is not correct.”
52. Whether the 2015 order issued under Section 113(1) of the Act
would be construed as a notification issued under Section 105(3) of the
2013 Act has been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahanadi
Coal Fields Ltd., and Ors. v. Mathias Oram and Ors., reported in AIR 2022
SC 5723. The relevant portion of the order reads thus :
“23. Section 105 of the R&R Act 2013 reads as
follows:
105. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain
cases or to apply with certain modifications.–(1)
Subject to sub-section (3), the provisions of this
Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to
land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule.
(2) Subject to sub-section (2) of section 106, the
Central Government may, by notification, omit or
add to any of the enactments specified in the
Fourth Schedule.
(3) The Central Government shall, by notification,
within one year from the date of commencement of
39/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
this Act, direct that any of the provisions of this
Act relating to the determination of compensation
in accordance with the First Schedule and
rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the
Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to
the affected families, shall apply to the cases of
land acquisition under the enactments specified in
the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such
exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the
compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act
relating to compensation or rehabilitation and
resettlement as may be specified in the
notification, as the case may be.
(4) A copy of every notification proposed to be
issued under sub-section (3), shall be laid in draft
before each House of Parliament, while it is in
session, for a total period of thirty days which may
be comprised in one session or in two or more
successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the
session immediately following the session or the
successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree
in disapproving the issue of the notification or
both Houses agree in making any modification in
the notification, the notification shall not be issued
or, as the case may be, shall be issued only in such
40/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
modified form as may be agreed upon by both the
Houses of Parliament.”
Entry 11 to the Fourth Schedule of the said Act, read as
follows:
“11. The Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition and
Development Act, 1957 (20 of 1957)”
24. By virtue of Section 105, read with the Fourth
Schedule, therefore, the R&R Act 2013, was not
applicable to acquisitions made under the CBA Act.
However, by Section 105(2), the Central Government
had issued a notification:
“Direct that any of the provisions of this Act
relating to the determination of compensation in
accordance with the First Schedule and
rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the
Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to
the affected families, shall apply to the cases of
land acquisition under the enactments specified in
the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such
exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the
compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act
relating to compensation or rehabilitation and
resettlement as may be specified in the
notification, as the case may be.”
25. The Ministry of Coal, Central Government issued a
41/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021clarification dated 04.08.2017 on the applicability of
First, Second and Third Schedules of the R&R Act,
2013 in cases of acquisition of lands under the CBA
Act. The clarification stated as under:
“1….That consequent upon the announcement of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act 2013 (hereinafter ‘RFCTLARR
Act‘) and Order SO No. 2368(E). notified on
28.08.2015 by Ministry of Rural Development,
Coal India Limited and its subsidiaries have
sought clarifications regarding payment of
compensation for land acquired prior to
01.09.2015 under Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition
and Development Act. 1957(hereinafter the ‘CBA
Act’)
2. As multiple stages are involved in the land
acquisition process, including that of
determination of compensation, this Ministry
sought advice from Ministry of Law and Justice.
Ministry of Law and Justice has given their advice
that if the compensation has not been determined
before 01.09.2015 under Section 13(5) of the CBA
Act, then the provisions of First Schedule, Second
Schedule and Third Schedule of the RFCTLARR
42/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
Act will be applicable. In remaining cases where
the compensation has already been determined
under Section 13(5) of the CBA Act before
01.09.2015, then such cases will not be reopened.
4. In view of the above clarifications, previous
order letter no. 430200/26/88-LSW dated
12.05.1989 issued by the. Ministry of Energy,
Department of Coal shall stand modified. The
above clarifications may be followed in
determination of compensation for land acquired
under CBA Act. This is issued with the approval
of the competent authority.
s/d R.S. Saroj Under Secretary to the Govt. of
India”.
26. The above relevant facts reveal that Section 105
excluded application of the R&R Act, 2013 to
acquisitions made and eminent domain exercised,
under the enactments specified in its Fourth Schedule,
such as the CBA Act. It was under this enactment, that
the acquisitions which are the subject matter of the
present proceedings, were notified in favour of MCL.
27. When the R&R Act, 2013 was brought into force
with effect from 01.01.2014, the acquisitions in favour
of MCL continued to be under the CBA Act. By Section
105(3) of the R& R Act, 2013, the Central Government
43/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
was obliged to issue the notification within one year
from the date of commencement of that Act to ensure
that its provisions relating to the determination of
compensation, were in accordance with the provisions
in the First Schedule and rehabilitation and
resettlement in accordance with the Second and Third
Schedules of that Act. It was pursuant to this mandate,
that on 28.08.2015 the Central Government issued a
notification in terms of Section 105(3). However, the
Central Government chose to exercise its power to
remove difficulties, under Section 113. This seems to
be because the notification was issued on 28.08.2015–
beyond the period prescribed in Section 105(3).
Nevertheless, the spirit of the statutory injunction to
make the beneficial provisions of the R&R Act, 2013
applicable to compensation determination and
resettlement or rehabilitation measures, was complied
with in effect and substance.”
(Emphasis supplied)
53. Ultimately, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear in
unequivocal terms in paragraph 27 of the order as extracted herein above
that, the order issued by the Central Government on 28.08.2015 is in terms
44/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
of Section 105(3) of the Act. It has been made further clear by Hon’ble
Supreme Court that, the Central Government chooses to exercise its power
to remove difficulties under Section 113. This seems to be because the
notification was issued on 28.08.2015 beyond the period prescribed in
Section 105(3). Nevertheless, the spirit of the statutory injunction to make
the beneficial provisions of the R&R Act, 2013 applicable to compensation,
determination and resettlement or rehabilitation measures, was complied
with in effect and substance.
54. With these words of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a complete
answer has been given to the question raised on the petitioners side that,
whether the 2015 order issued on 28.08.2015 would be treated as a
notification within the meaning of Section 105(3) of the 2013 Act or not.
55. The Central Government has been given the power both under
Section 105(3) as well as under Section 113(1) of the Act. Within Section
105(3), such a notification should be issued within a one year period,
however, if a notification could not be issued within a one year period, it
cannot be stated that, it can never be issued in any other form, thereby all
45/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
the 13 enactments under the Fourth Schedule would get relieved from the
clutches of Act 2013 provisions. If that being so, it would be beneficial to
land acquisition authorities, i.e., the requisition body to acquire the land
under the 13 enactments of Fourth Schedule but not in advantage or
beneficial to the land owners.
56. The very purpose of 2013 Act is to give more benefits to land
owners, thereby determination of compensation, rehabilitation and
resettlement everything has been specifically stated under the provisions of
the 2013 Act by having the Schedules like First Schedule, Second Schedule
and Third Schedule. If this is the main object of the 2013 Act, as per the
objects and reasons which we have traced herein above, such an object
cannot be defeated by giving an interpretation to state that, once a
notification has not been issued by the Central Government under Section
105(3) of the Act that the entire thing get lapsed, thereby the 13 enactments
of Fourth Schedule would completely get separated from the purview of the
applicability of the provisions of the 2013 Act.
57. If that arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners is accepted, that would be detrimental even to the petitioners
as they would not get proper compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement
46/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
if any as provided under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
58. That is the reason why the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahanadi’s
case (cited supra) has made it very clear in unequivocal terms by making a
declaration that the spirit of the statutory injunction to make the beneficial
provisions of the R&R Act 2013 applicable to compensation, determination
and resettlement or rehabilitation measures, was complied with in effect and
substance.
59. If it is complied with in effect and substance, as has been declared
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same can be the law which cannot be
stretched upon or to be interpreted to the whims and fancy or the desire of
the litigant as that would be detrimental to the very purpose of the 2013 Act
as well as the provisions namely Section 105(3) as well as Section 113(1)
which are enabling provisions to make it clear that, the determination of
compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement provisions of the 2013 Act
mandatorily to be made applicable to the land acquisition proceedings made
under the 13 enactments of the Fourth Schedule.
47/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
60. Therefore at no stretch of imagination, the petitioners can put
forth the case to state that because of non-issuance of notification under
Section 105(3) of the Act, the provisions relates to land acquisition of the
1956 Highways Act becomes void and unconstitutional. Absolutely there
has been no scope for making such a declaration in view of the discussion
herein we have made.
61. Since the provisions of 1956 Highways Act relates to land
acquisition are valid and the provisions of 2013 Act relates to determination
of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement of the land acquisition
proceedings initiated and concluded by the provisions of the 1956
Highways Act since has been saved by making the provisions of 2013 Act,
on all these three aspects applicable to the land acquisition proceedings
under 1956 Act, the petitioners would be the beneficiaries and therefore
they cannot seek for such a declaration as sought for including the
quashment sought for by the petitioners against the notification issued under
the provisions of the 1956 Act.
62. Therefore the challenge that has been made against the provisions
48/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
of the 1956 National Highways Act and consequential notification issued
under various provisions of the said Act for land acquisition proceedings are
held to be valid and therefore all these writ petitions have to fail
accordingly, they are liable to be rejected.
63. In the result, all these writ petitions are dismissed. However, there
is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (G.A.M., J.)
30.01.2025
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
tsvn
To
1. The Secretary
Union of India
Ministry of Shipping,
Road Transport and Highways,
New Delhi.
2. The Competent Authority and
District Revenue Officer,
(Road Transport Highways)
49/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
Thirumangalam-Rajapalayam Four Lane Project,
Madurai Collectorate Office,
Madurai.
3. The Project Director
Project Implementation Unit,
National Highways Authority of India,
Madurai.
4. The Chairman
National Highway Authority of India
G5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi – 110 075.
50/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710 and 16711 of 2021
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
tsvn
Common Order in
W.P.(MD).Nos.6727, 16710
and 16711 of 2021
30.01.2025
51/53
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
[ad_1]
Source link