LALITA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions the petitioners have sought for a declaration declaring that the provisions of the National highway Act, 1956 (Amendment) (Act No. 16/1997] (hereinafter referred to as 'the highways Act') are unconstitutional and for quashing of the notifications dated 2-2-1999 and 15-9-1999 issued under S. 3-A (l) and 3-D of the Highways Act.

(2.) THOUGH the petitioners have challenged all the provisions of the Act No. 16/ 1997, have confined their argument only insofar as it relates to exclusion of the application of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the' LA Act' ).

(3.) SRI Kothavale, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Parliament has no power, to enact a law called highways Act, for the purpose of acquisition of land, which is diametrically opposed to the LA Act. In support of his contention he has referred to the provisions of the Act, with reference to the LA Act and submits that the provisions introduced by way of an amendment by Act. No. 16/1997 are to be declared as unconstitutional. Section 3-A of the Highways Act is similar to S. 4 (1) of the la Act. Similarly, S. 3-C is similar to S. 5a of the LA Act. Section 3-D of the Highways act is similar to S. 6 (1) of the LA Act "and S. 3-E is similar to S. 16 of the Act. Sectibn 3-G is similar to S. 23 of the LA Act. Section 3-J specifically excludes the application of the land acquisition Act for the purpose of determining the compensation in respect of the lands acquired under the Highways Act.