BANSHILAL SAMARIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are seized in the set of these writ petitions, with an important question of law as to validity and constitutionality of Section 3-J of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short "the Act of 1956" hereinafter) inserted in the said Act by the National Highway Laws Amendment) Act, 1997 w. e. f. 24. 1. 1997.

(2.) SECTION 3-J of the Act of 1956 excludes the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. The provisions contained in SECTION 3, 3- A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-E, 3-F, 3-G, 3-H, 3-I and 3-J were inserted in the Act of 1956 by the said Amending Act of 1997 so as to provide for quicker and smoother acquisitions under the Act of 1956 of the land acquired for the said purpose as it was found that inordinate delay in the acquisition of the lands under the Land Acquisition Act was one of the main impediments in the speedy implementation of highways project and therefore, the said amendment was legislated by the Parliament in 1997.

(3.) THE first objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Shri M. D. Purohit, Senior Advocate is that there cannot be two legislations by the same legislature on the same subject matter providing for discriminatory provisions and existence of two enactments on the same subject gives power to the State to give different treatment to land owners similarly situated and therefore, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.