UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus TARSEM SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 49 · Decided: 19-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
49
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
v.
TARSEM SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7064 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 19, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
National Highways Act, 1956 [As amended by National
Highways Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997]:
s.3A, 3G(7) and 3J – Acquisition under the Act – Award of
solatium – Whether permissible – Held: Solatium is part and parcel
of compensation that is payable for compulsory acquisition of land
– 1956 Act was amended by 1997 Amendment Act with the object of
reducing the delay and for speedy implementation of highway
projects – The Amendment Act, 1997 cannot be shielded by Art.
31-C of the Constitution as the object of the Amendment has no
direct and rational nexus with the Directive Principles contained in
Art. 39(b) of the Constitution – Even if the Amendment Act is regarded
as an Act to carry out the purpose of Art. 39(b), the object of the
Amendment Act is not served by removing solatium and interest from
compensation –  Thus grant of compensation without solatium and
interest, not being basically and essentially necessary to carry out
the object of the Amendment Act, would not be protected by Art.
31-C and, therefore, any infraction of Art. 14 can be inquired into
by the Court – A classification made between different sets of land-
owners has no relation to the  object sought to be achieved by the
Amendment Act, and hence the Amendment Act falls foul of Art. 14
of the Constitution – Therefore, the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest contained in Section
23 (1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of proviso to Section
28 will apply to the acquisitions made under National Highways
Act – Therefore, Section 35J to this extent is violative of Art.14 and
hence unconstitutional – Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 31-C and
39(b).
Constitution of India
Art. 31-C –  Protection under – When available – Held: For
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 49
49
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
availing protection u/Art. 31-C any declaration to that effect is not
necessary – If the law has a direct and rational nexus with the
Directive Principles contained in Art. 39(b), the law would be
shielded by Art. 31-C – It is not every provision of a statute enacted
with a dominant object of giving effect to a Directive Principle which
are protected under the amended Art.31-C,, but only those provisions
which are basically and essentially necessary for giving effect to
the Directive Principles are protected.
Disposing the appeals, the Court
HELD:  1.1 The National Highways Act, 1956, as originally
enacted, did not provide for acquisition of land. Thus, till the
National Highways Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997, all acquisitions
for the purpose of National Highways were made under the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and the owners were given, in addition to
market value, solatium as well as interest under the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act. [Para 6][63-B]
1.2 Keeping in view the object of reducing delay and speedy
implementation of highway projects, the amended National
Highways Act does away with any “award” by way of an offer to
the landowner. Post the notification under Section 3A of National
Highways Act, objections are to be heard by the competent
authority, whose order is then made final. The moment the
authority disallows the objections, a report is submitted to the
Central Government, and on receipt of such report, the Central
Government, by a declaration, states that the land should be
acquired for the purpose mentioned in Section 3A. The important
innovation made by the Amendment Act is that vesting is not
postponed to after an award is made by the Competent Authority.
Vesting takes place as soon as the Section 3D declaration is made.
One other important difference between the Amendment Act and
the Land Acquisition Act is that determination of compensation
is to be made by the competent authority under the Amendment
Act which, if not accepted by either party, is then to be determined
by an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.
Such arbitrator’s Award is then subject to challenge under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thus, delays in references
made to District Judges and appeals therefrom to the High Court
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
51
and Supreme Court have been obviated. Section 3G(7) does not
provide for grant of solatium, and Section 3H(5) awards interest
at the rate of 9% on the excess amount determined by the
arbitrator over what is

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.