The Supreme Court on Thursday urged the Union government to suitably amend the National Highways Act, (NHA) 1956, so that disputes over compensation for land acquired for national highway projects are decided by “judicially trained minds” instead of government officers, observing that the existing framework is a “peculiar situation” that warrants immediate attention.
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the determination of compensation is “purely a judicial exercise” and questioned why landowners whose properties are acquired under the NHA should be subjected to a mechanism different from that available under other land acquisition laws.
“Every such Act (dealing with land acquisition) provides that the procedure laid down in the central Act will apply. So, for all acquisitions, the determination of compensation, which is purely a judicial exercise, is done by judicially trained minds. This is the only Act where an exception is carved out and bureaucrats have been entrusted with this. That is prima facie not acceptable to us. This is a very peculiar situation. This needs to be addressed immediately. Either by us, or by Parliament,” said the bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana.
The remarks came during the hearing of a batch of appeals challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that declared Sections 3G and 3J of the NHA unconstitutional. The provisions govern the mechanism for determining compensation and resolving disputes through statutory arbitration when landowners challenge the amount awarded for acquisition of their land.
{{/usCountry}}The remarks came during the hearing of a batch of appeals challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment that declared Sections 3G and 3J of the NHA unconstitutional. The provisions govern the mechanism for determining compensation and resolving disputes through statutory arbitration when landowners challenge the amount awarded for acquisition of their land.
{{/usCountry}}The core of the challenge is the alleged discrimination between landowners whose lands are acquired under the NHA and those whose lands are acquired under legislations such as the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
While compensation disputes under the latter enactments are adjudicated by judicial courts through reference proceedings, the NHA requires such disputes to be decided by arbitrators appointed by the Central government, who are typically serving bureaucrats such as commissioners or district collectors.
The bench has, in earlier hearings, also flagged this disparity, observing that unlike other acquisition laws, the NHA does not provide landowners an immediate judicial forum for adjudication of compensation disputes, raising concerns under Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects the right to property.
Attorney General R Venkataramani informed the court on Thursday that the Centre was actively considering legislative changes. “The government is seriously considering amendment to the Act. If there is an amendment, it will take care (of the pending cases),” he submitted.
Recording the statement, the bench said: “We have impressed upon the learned Attorney General to take up the matter with the competent authority for suitable amendment in the National Highways Act. He assures that the matter will be taken up as early as possible.”
Pending such consideration, the court directed arbitrators appointed under the Act to continue hearing pending matters, making it clear that all such proceedings would remain subject to the final outcome of the present batch of cases.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), submitted that the National Highways Act was not unique in providing for statutory arbitration, pointing out that at least 12 legislations adopt similar mechanisms. He argued that the Act incorporates the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that once an award is rendered by the statutory arbitrator, parties have recourse to remedies available under the arbitration law.
The bench, however, sought detailed assistance on whether the unilateral appointment of arbitrators under the National Highways Act could withstand scrutiny in light of the Arbitration Act and evolving jurisprudence on the independence and impartiality of arbitral tribunals.