Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The petitioner prays for issuance of a Writ of Declaration to declare Section 105 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (RFCT Act), and the Fourth Schedule to the RFCT Act as well as the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act) in respect of the proposed Green Field Chennai-Salem Highway (subject Highway) in Tamil Nadu as unconstitutional, null and void.

3. The petitioner would state that he recently came to know that the second respondent namely, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, had commenced land acquisition proceedings by issuing notification, dated 11.06.2018, under Section 3A(1) of the NH Act in respect of the subject Highway and that persons likely to be affected by the acquisition of the land for the proposed project have been directed to file their objections within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification and the project is likely to affect people in Kancheepuram, Tiruvannamalai, Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri and Salem Districts. The petitioner would further state that even before the objections are received from the persons likely to be affected by the land acquisition, the competent authorities have already started proceedings pursuant to Section 3A(1) of the NH Act, much to the detriment of the agriculturists in the above Districts. The petitioner would further state that the RFCT Act came into force on 01.01.2014 with a laudable object, providing for consultation with the institutions of local government and Grama Sabha for a participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition with least disturbance to the owners of the land and other affected families. It is further stated that contrary to the very object of the RFCT Act, Section 105 has been inserted in the said Act, which provides that the provisions of the RFCT Act, shall not apply to the land acquisition under the enactments specified in the fourth Schedule. The fourth schedule contains 13 enactments and one of them is the NH Act. It is further submitted that Section 105(3) of the RFCT Act, provides that the Union of India shall apply the provisions of the Act relating to the determination of compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement to the land acquisition made under NH Act and other enactments, however Section 105 operates against the application of Chapters II, III & IV of the RFCT Act to the land acquisitions effected under any of the enactments mentioned in the Fourth Schedule including the NH Act.

6. Nextly, referring to Chapter II of the RFCT Act, which contains Section 4 to 9, it is submitted that the Act provides for a consultation with the concerned Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation as the case may be, whenever the appropriate Government intents to acquire land for a public purpose. Further, Section 4(1) mandates a social impact assessment study in consultation with the Panchayat, Municipality etc., in the manner specified by the Government by notification. Further sub-section (2) of Section 4 mandates that the notification and the social impact assessment study should be made available in local language and it should be published in the affected areas. Thus, by inclusion of the NH Act in Section 105, this very important requirement has been done away with. Similarly, by referring to other sub-sections of Section 4, Section 5 and Section 7, the learned counsel stressed the need and object of the social impact assessment study. Further, it is submitted that the objects for enacting the RFCT Act, has been clearly spelt out and having proposed the same, the Parliament has inserted the Section 105, which is diametrically opposed to achieving the objects of the RFCT Act. It is submitted that there is absolutely no rationale for excluding the provisions of Chapter II, III & IV of the RFCT Act from the purview of land acquisition proceedings made under the 13 enactments mentioned in the fourth schedule. Therefore, it is submitted that Section 105 and the fourth Schedule are arbitrary, irrational, unfair, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Further it is submitted that the land is acquired for public purpose either under the RFCT Act or under any one of the 13 enactments mentioned in the Fourth Schedule, the procedure in relation to such acquisition should be one and the same and the procedure prescribed in Chapter II, III & IV of the RFCT Act is required to be followed mandatorily. Further, it is submitted that there is no intelligible differentia as to why the procedure prescribed under Chapters II, III & IV of the Act should not be followed in respect of the acquisition of land under enactments mentioned in the Fourth Schedule. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel that Section 105, perpetuates discriminatory treatment on the owners of the land acquired under the 13 enactments mentioned in the Fourth Schedule. Though the owners of the lands acquired under the RFCT Act and the owners of the land acquired under the enactments mentioned in the Fourth Schedule are similarly placed, they are treated discriminatorily in the sense that the mandatory provisions of the Chapter II, III, & IV of the Act would be non-existent to those whose lands are acquired under the enactments mentioned in the Fourth Schedule. Therefore, it is submitted that Section 105 and the Fourth Schedule are not only arbitrary, but discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution. It is submitted that Section 105 of the Act and the Fourth Schedule are to be declared as unconstitutional and consequently, the entire land acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject Highway is to be declared as null and void.

7. It is further submitted that if the RFCT Act invites discrimination and perpetuates discrimination, it is ultra vires. It is further submitted that the petitioner's challenge is to the exclusion of Chapters II, III & IV of the RFCT Act to the land acquisition proceedings for the subject Highway under the NH Act and what is required to be considered is whether there is a rationale to exclude the said provision. Further, it is submitted that in view of Section 4 of the RFCT Act, the definition of public purpose requires to be redefined and public purpose can be determined only in consultation with the concerned Panchayat, Municipality, Municipal Corporation in the affected areas and not in any other manner. Further, by referring to Section 6(1) of the RFCT Act, with a view to stress upon the importance of the social impact assessment study, it is submitted that the social impact management plan must be made available in the local language to the local bodies and shall be published in the affected areas. Further, it is submitted that the validity of the enactment as challenged by the petitioner should be looked into by considering the purpose of enacting RFCT Act and not to be tested upon the decisions of the Courts, which were rendered prior to the RFCT Act coming into force. Thus, it is submitted that the RFCT Act is a comprehensive enactment and as of now 13 enactments have been included in the Fourth Schedule and several may be included in the Fourth Schedule and ultimately, it will affect the very object of enacting the RFCT Act. Further by referring to Section 7 & Section 8 of the Act, it is submitted that the social impact assessment is not a formality. It is the soul of the land acquisition and the petitioner is well justified in approaching this Court by way of this Public Interest Litigation, since one of the factors, which is required to be considered is ecology, which affects everybody. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the proviso contained in Section 10 will be applicable only to sub-section (4) of Section 10 and not to other sub-sections in Section 10. It is submitted that the respondents cannot apply two enactments to the same land, which is sufficient to prove that there is discrimination. In support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keshavan Madhava Menon vs. State of State of Bombay, AIR 1951 SC 128 and the decision in the case of Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., AIR 2014 SC 2140.

8. Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the Union of India submitted that the Writ Petition is pre-mature and the petitioner does not have locus-standi to maintain the Writ Petition. It is submitted that in terms of Article 300A, the requirement is that there should be a law in place for acquisition and for the subject acquisition, the relevant law is the NH Act. After referring to Section 105 of the RFCT Act, it is submitted that a notification has been issued by the Central Government under sub-section (3) of Section 105, by virtue of which, the benefits under the RFCT Act, insofar as it relates to compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement has been extended to the present acquisition proceedings and the land owner is in no way affected by the acquisition, as his interest has been sufficiently safeguarded and he will receive adequate compensation in terms of the RFCT Act. Referring to the decision in the case of K.T.Plantation Pvt. Ltd., & Anr., vs. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1, it is submitted that Article 21 does not apply to acquisition under Article 300A. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty, (2011) 12 SCC 69, to emphasise that National Highways Authority of India is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. Reliance was placed on the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the case of Phool Kanwar & Ors.,vs. Union of India in W.P.No.9577 of 2015, wherein a challenge was made to Section 105 of the RFCT Act, which challenge was rejected by the Division Bench and the Writ Petition was dismissed. Reliance was placed on the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Prithvi Singh & Ors., vs. Union of India & Ors., in CWP 689 of 2012, dated 16.05.2013, which also related to an acquisition proceedings under one of the 13 enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule for an Atomic power project. Further, it is submitted that the definition of public purpose under the RFCT Act, if looked into, in terms of Section 2(1) of the Act, it is an exclusive definition and the answer to the query raised by the petitioner lies in Section 3A of the NH Act. Further, it is submitted that the scheme of the NH Act provides for an opportunity to any person interested in the land to submit his objection and the stage is yet to come and the present attempt of the petitioner is not sustainable. Further, it is submitted that the basis of the land losers' right to get higher compensation flows from Section 105 of the RFCT Act and if as sought for by the petitioner, Section 105 of the RFCT Act is to be struck down, it will tantamount to praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the Government to implement the provisions of the RFCT Act to a National Highways Project, which is impermissible. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P., vs. G.C.Mandawar AIR 1954 SC 493.