Dysfunctional & Arbitrary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Sections 3G & 3J Of National Highways Act As Unconstitutional
The Punjab and Haryana High Court was deciding a batch of Writ Petitions, seeking to direct the State authorities to award statutory benefits akin to Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared Sections 3G and 3J of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NHA) as constitutionally void.
The aforesaid provisions are related to the acquisition of land by the Government, its procedure, power to enter and survey land, and compensation to the landowner.
The Court was deciding a batch of Writ Petitions, seeking to direct the State authorities to award statutory benefits akin to Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act).
A Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri held, “… enigmatically the foundational effect of parity becoming ensured amongst the similar class of land losers, has been lost sight of, by the Union Parliament, in making different and distinct methodology(ies), for assessment of compensation, to but a similar set of land losers. Moreover, the prescribed methodology for enhancement in the Act of 1956, but is prima facie a dysfunctional and arbitrary remedy, vis-a-vis the ones respectively created in the Act of 1894 and in the Act of 2013 qua the aggrieved from the appositely passed awards.”
The Bench added that the doctrine of eminent domain which was to be uniformly applied rather has been inconsistently employed, through the creation of an utmost invidious discrimination amongst a common set of land losers, thereby the said contra methodology(ies) are required to be discountenanced.
Senior Advocate Shailendra Jain and Advocate Abhilaksh Grover appeared for the Petitioners while Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI) Satya Pal Jain, Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel Dheeraj Jain, Geeta Singhwal, Advocates (Amicus Curiae) Maninder Singh, and Ankur Mittal appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner in the lead case, prayed for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to award a statutory benefit of solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% and 15% akin to Section 23(2) and 28 of the LA Act, upon the market values quantified vide an Award in lieu of the compulsory acquisition of the lands of the Petitioners by the Respondents. The Respondents had assumed possession in April 2012 in light of the ratio of the Judgment in the case of National Highway Authority of India v. Resham Singh and others (LPA No.4965 of 2018). A further prayer was made for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, thereby declaring Section 3G of NHA as unconstitutional being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was further prayed that Section 3J of the Act be also struck down.
Reasoning
The High Court after hearing the arguments of the counsel, observed, “Since the effect of the said declaration of voidness as made vis-a-vis Section 3G of the Act of 1956, is that, the amendments are required to be made by the Union Parliament, wherebys in alteration to the remedy of arbitration, thus a remedy becomes bestowed to the land losers, wherebys they can seek in alignment with the mandate existing in Section 18 of the repealed Act of 1894, thus enhancement of compensation over the sums assessed by the Collector appointed under the Act of 2013.”
The Court further noted that the principle of eminent domain, thus is to be rigorously and uniformly employed, to the same or similar homogeneous class of land losers, rather than disparity becoming created amongst them, through different and contra methodology(ies), becoming created respectively in the Act of 1956, in the Act of 1894 and in the Act of 2013.
“In case separate and distinction methodologies for determining compensation become foisted upon the Collector concerned, besides with the thereafter, contra distinct remedies for seeking enhancement become created qua aggrieved, thus respectively in the Act of 1894, and in the Act of 2013, besides in the Act of 1956, therebys the said inter se distinctivity(ies) are not based, upon, any intelligible differentia nor have any rationale nexus with the objective to be achieved which is yet to assess compensation at uniform rates, thus to all land losers concerned”, it added.
The Court, therefore declared Sections 3G and 3J of NHA as unconstitutional also directed the Respondents to award statutory benefit of solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% and 15% akin to Section 23(2) and 28 of the LA Act.
“Though this Court has declared Sections 3G and 3J of the Act of 1956 to be Constitutionally void, therebys when the said provisions is void or non est, therebys when it is completely dysfunctional, as such, all pending arbitration petitions also become completely ineffective, wherebys in terms of the expositions of law made in Tarsem Singh’s case (supra) , thus this Court can proceed to in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, thus in case, the parameters enshrined in Tarsem Singh’s case (supra) , re-affirmed in miscellaneous application bearing No.1773/2021 in Civil Appeal No.7064 of 2019, becoming not applied by the Collectors in passing the awards, rather pass such/said appropriate directions, as deemed fit but on a cases to case basis. Even the execution petition(s) filed to execute awards passed by the arbitrators would become ineffective”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the Registry to circulate a copy of its Judgment to all the Collectors concerned in the States of Punjab and Haryana.
Cause Title- Sohan Lal and Others v. Union of India and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:040091-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Shailendra Jain, Advocates Abhilaksh Grover, Richa Sharma, and Nandini Gupta.
Respondents: ASGI Satya Pal Jain, Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel Dheeraj Jain, Geeta Singhwal, Advocates (Amicus Curiae) Maninder Singh, Ankur Mittal, Advocates Maninderjit Singh Bedi, PP. Chahar, Saurabh Mago, Svaneel Jaswal, Kushaldeep Kaur, Karan Gupta, Prince Goyal, Saanvi Singla, Sakal Sekri, Siddhanth Arora, M.L. Singhwal, Puneet Kaur Sekhon, and Vivek Dahiya.
