Read Time: 09 minutes

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has recently held that the Central government has the power to take possession under the National Highway Act, 1956, after complying with the requirements of Section 3-E of the Act.

Justice Anil Kshetarpal made such observations while hearing a plea filed by one Manjit Singh in a land acquisition matter involving the National Highway Authorities of India (NHAI).

The properties of the petitioners were acquired with the aim to utilize the land/property for construction (widening/paved shoulders with 2/4 laning etc), maintenance, management and operation of the National Highway No.5.

Originally, the petitioners claimed that no award with regard to the super structure was passed but after the respondents filed their reply, they admitted that the supplementary award with regard to the super structure had been announced on June 16, 2021 and the amount payable to the owners had been deposited with the competent authority on August 10, 2021.

The question that arose for consideration by the High Court was whether it was appropriate to continue with the interim protection which is an impediment in the progress of an infrastructural project merely because an independent award with respect to the rehabilitation and resettlement of the petitioners as envisaged under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013) has not been passed yet.

The Court also questioned if Section 38 of the RFCTLARR Act 2013 is applicable to the acquisition of the land/property under the 1956 Act.

It was noted here that Section 103 of the RFCTLARR Act 2013, provided that the provisions of the Act 2013 shall be in addition to and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force and Section 105 provided that the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act 2013 will not apply in certain cases or to apply with certain modifications in certain situations.

The Court held that the 1956 Act and the RFCTLARR Act 2013 were two independent enactments operating in their respective fields.

Further reliance was placed on the notification issued by the Ministry of Rural Development, on August 28, 2015, wherein it was apparent that a decision was taken only to extend the benefits relating to the determination of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement in accordance with the 2nd Schedule and, the Central Government cannot be said to have rendered Section 3(E) otiose.

It was held that the possession of the acquired land can be taken even if an independent award with respect to Rehabilitation and Resettlement is not passed, keeping in view the progress of an infrastructural project.

The Court further observed that the Central Government had carried out substantive amendments in the Specific Relief Act, 1963, prohibiting the Civil Courts from granting injunctions which adversely affects the progress of infrastructural projects.

It added,

“Furthermore, the petitioners at the most, are entitled to compensation for their resettlement and rehabilitation. The Court can monitor and regulate the same. The Court is also entitled to direct the Union of India or the national Highway Authority or the competent authority to comply with the requirement of the notification dated 28.08.2015. However, it is not considered appropriate to allow the public interest to suffer as a consequence of such an order.”

While concluding the Court noted that the counsel representing the petitioners had also filed a petition in 2018, on behalf of various other landowners wherein no restraining order was passed.

Justice Kshetarpal said that the counsel failed to bring the same to the notice of the Court. This prompted him to say:

“It may be noted here that a person practicing law is required to maintain a higher ethical conduct. The legal profession is not a business or trade but it is a Nobel profession. The advocates are officers of the Court. They are required to be scrupulously honest and fair not only with the litigants they represent but also with the Court. No lawyer/advocate should attempt to mislead or conceal material facts or information from the Court. The advocates are entitled to certain privileges being the officers of the court but in the same breath, they are required to maintain highest standard of integrity while dealing with the court and the litigants they represent”

The matter is set to be heard on 10th November, 2021.

 

Mr. Charanpal Singh Bagri, Advocate, Deepshikha Gupta, Associate at Lex Commerci, Chandigarh appeared for the petitioners.

Mr. R.S.Madan, Advocate, appeared for the NHAI.

Case Title: Manjit Singh and others V. Union of India and others