Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

http://www.judis.nic.in “21.The land acquisition for the subject project is under the provisions of the NH Act, which is a Central enactment. Thus, the acquisition has to be in terms of the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner has not alleged that the land owners are deprived of their property without authority of law. The endeavour of the petitioner is to state that the RFCT Act, having been enacted in the year 2013 and having come into force on 01.01.2014 is a comprehensive legislation with an avowed object involving a participatory approach, land owner friendly and the provisions of the Act cannot be made inapplicable to a chosen few enactments, which have been listed in the Fourth Schedule to the RFCT Act and one such enactment being the NH Act. The question would be as to whether on the grounds raised, Section 105 can be struck down as being unconstitutional. ......
22.The Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development, by order dated 28.08.2015 in SO 2368(E) in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 113 of the RFCT Act, has ordered that the provisions of the RFCT Act relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with 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 http://www.judis.nic.in in the Fourth Schedule to the RFCT Act. This order has been passed in exercise of the powers of the Central Government to remove difficulties and provides for applicability of the procedure for determination of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement and infrastructural amenities as contained in the RFCT Act to acquisition under the NH Act or for that matter, all acquisitions under 13 enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule. Thus, so far as the interest of the land owners is concerned, the procedure for determination of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement and provision of infrastructural amenities as envisaged under the RFCT Act has been made applicable mutandis mutandis to the acquisition under the NH Act. There is no quarrel on this aspect, but the petitioner's case is that provision of Chapter II, III & IV of the RFCT Act should be made applicable. According to Mr.M.Radhakrishnan, non-

http://www.judis.nic.in

23.The learned Additional Solicitor General of India and the learned Advocate General are right in their submission that if the prayer sought for by the petitioner to declare Section 105 as unconstitutional is granted, the land owners would be gravely prejudiced. This is so because, the manner of determination of compensation is more advantageous to the land owner under the RFCT Act. The NH Act does not provide for the procedure for rehabilitation and resettlement nor setting up of infrastructural facilities as envisaged in Schedule 1, 2 & 3 of the RFCT Act. Thus, if Section 105 is struck down, the NH Act will govern the field and the acquisition will proceed under the NH Act and the compensation will have to be determined under the said Act. This undoubtedly would be prejudicial to the interest of the land owners. Therefore, we fail to understand as to what benefit would accrue to the land owners by declaring Section 105 as unconstitutional. Parallelly, the important question would be, can this being a ground to declare Section 105 as ultra vires, irrational with no intelligible differentia. At this stage, we may point out that the petitioner in this Writ Petition is not a land owner/land loser.

41.As mentioned by us above, Section 105 of the RFCT Act has integrated the thirteen enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule, and if it were to be struck down, the benefits extended with the applicability of the RFCT Act to those 13 enactments will go away and each of the thirteen enactments would operate separately thereby defeating the need and purpose of enacting RFCT Act to bring about an uniform procedure for compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement. To be noted the NH Act has been in force since 1956; similarly the other 12 enactments have been in force for considerable length of time. The NH Act was enacted much after the 1894 Land http://www.judis.nic.in Acquisition Act and acquisitions under the NH Act were outside the purview of the 1894 Act, so also the other 12 enactments. Thus, by introducing sub-section (3) to Section 105 of the RFCT Act, the 13 enactments have been brought under the umbrella of RFCT Act by extending the benefits of adequate compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement.