Punjab & Haryana HC Declares Sections 3G & 3J Of National Highways Act Unconstitutional Over Discriminatory Mechanism For Compensation Of Landowners

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has declared Sections 3G and 3J of the National Highways Act as unconstitutional for being violative of Article 14.

Court said that the provisions unfairly denied benefits to land losers available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013.

Section 3G pertains to the determination of amount payable as compensation and Section 3J states that nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply to an acquisition under the National Highways Act.

The core issue revolved around the discriminatory compensation mechanisms under the 1956 Act compared to the 1894 and 2013 Acts. The petitioners sought solatium (an additional compensation of 30%) and interest as provided under section 23(2) and section 28 of the 1984 Act.

A division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri observed that sections 3G and 3J of the 1956 Act created an unfair and discriminatory system for compensating landowners. While landowners under the 1894 and 2013 Acts receive higher compensation with additional statutory benefits, those under the 1956 Act were denied the same. This, the court ruled, was a violation of the Right to Equality of the Constitution.

Relying on Union of India Vs Tarsem Singh, the Court held that solatium and interest should apply even to acquisitions under the National Highways Act. It reaffirmed that all land acquisitions should follow a uniform compensation standard.

The Court further added that "Although this Court has declared Sections 3G and 3J of the Act of 1956 to be Constitutionally void, therebys when the said provisions is void or non est, therebys when it is completely dysfunctional, as such, all pending arbitration petitions also become completely ineffective, wherebys in terms of the expositions of law made in Tarsem Singh's case..."

Taking note of the comparative analysis done by the Amicus Curiae of the Determination of amount payable as compensation under the National Highway Act, 1956 ; Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 the Court said, "adequate deference becomes meted to the market value of the lands, besides to the other thereins envisaged statutory benefits. In addition, when under the Act of 2013, thus exists a methodology for assessing compensation to the aggrieved land losers, at a more escalated scale, than the one envisaged in the Act of 1894."

 Consequently, "the Act of 1956 was required to be re- calibrated, so that therebys it becomes attuned vis-a-vis the Act of 2013, besides to the prevalent credible market values. However, the said has not been done, therebys the Act of 1956, is thus detached, from ground reality, wherebys also just and fair compensation would remain un- assessed vis-a-vis the land losers concerned," it added.

Speaking for the bench Justice Sureshwar Thakur said, "Significantly also the principle of eminent domain, thus is to be rigorously and uniformly employed, to the same or similar homogeneous class of land losers, rather than disparity becoming created amongst them, through different and contra methodology(ies), becoming created respectively in the Act of 1956, in the Act of 1894 and in the Act of 2013."

The Court opined that, "In case separate and distinction methodologies for determining compensation become foisted upon the Collector concerned, besides with the thereafter, contra distinct remedies for seeking enhancement become created qua aggrieved, thus respectively in the Act of 1894, and in the Act of 2013, besides in the Act of 1956, therebys the said inter se distinctivity(ies) are not based, upon, any intelligible differentia nor have any rationale nexus with the objective to be achieved which is yet to assess compensation at uniform rates, thus to all land losers concerned."

Title: SOHAN LAL AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 135

Click here to read/download the order