DHARMARATNAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these cases, the principle issue that arises for consideration is whether a notification issued under S. 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 to acquire a land for the purpose of National Highway is illegal or not in the absence of a declaration under S. 2 of the Act. Apart from that, the petitioner also have raised a claim for compensation for the land acquired for National Highway in terms of provisions under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30/2013). The payments of compensation, rehabilitation, resettlement and modality of payment of compensation also arise for consideration in these Writ Petitions.

(2.) I shall advert to the challenge made by the petitioners in regard to the notification issued under S. 3A. This notification is issued for widening an existing highway, which was originally notified as National Highway. Thereafter, it was de notified. The stretch is forming part of Kuttipuram-Edapally NH-17. As seen Ext. P9 produced in W.P.(C) No. 42170/2018, this has been de notified by the Ministry of Road and Transport Highway as per the proceedings dated 05.03.2014. Therefore, the argument is that once highway has been de notified, no proceedings can be initiated under the National Highways Act, 1956 to acquire a land to widen that highway. According to the petitioners remedy is to invoke provisions of Act 30/2013 to acquire the land. The validity of this notification is questioned.

(3.) The National Highways Act, 1956 was enacted by the Parliament for declaring certain highways existing in the nation as national highway. The highways enumerated in the Schedule are declared as national highway by virtue of S. 2. Nowhere in the original enactment provides a provision for acquiring land for the purpose of national highway. Thereafter, by way of an amendment in the year 1997, certain provisions are incorporated conferring powers to acquire the land for the purpose of formation of National Highway. The stretch now forming part under the National Highway, pertaining to the petitioners land appears to have been originally declared as National Highway and thereafter, de notified. The question is whether for the purpose of issuance of notification under S. 3A such highway already exist or any land which required for such formation of National Highway will have to be declared under S. 2 as National Highway Act. These arguments appears to be misconceived. S. 2 only refers about declaration of national highway which are included in the schedule by notification issued by the Central Government. Sections 2 and 3 have no inter play in as much as that S. 3A is not depend upon notification issued by the Central Government under S. 2. S. 3A confers power to acquire land for the purpose of national highway. Therefore, after forming the highway, the Central Government can issue a notification to include such highway as a national highway by issuing a notification under S. 2. It is not necessary that there should be a notification under S. 2 for the purpose of invoking S. 3A. The purpose of S. 3A is conferring power on an authority to acquire land for the purpose of national highway. Therefore, the ultimate purpose, if it is for national highway, that public purpose would subserve the object of the National Highways Act. The declaration is only consequential act to be done in terms of S. 2. In view of the fact that S. 3A does not stipulate that there should be a declaration under S. 2 to initiate an action under S. 3A, I find no merit in the argument raised as above by the petitioner.