The Bombay High Court has clarified that for the purpose of land acquisition for national highways, the Central Government is the ‘appropriate Government’ under Section 3(e)(v) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The Court explained that National highways fall under the exclusive legislative domain of the Union of India as per Entry 23 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Consequently, the Central Government has the exclusive power to issue notifications specifying the multiplier factor for determining compensation under Section 30(2) of the Act of 2013.
Any notification or Government Resolution issued by a State Government that purports to determine the multiplier factor for land acquisition related to national highway projects is an unconstitutional encroachment on the Central Government’s exclusive jurisdiction and is, therefore, legally invalid to that extent, added the Court.
Accordingly, the Court ruled that the Central Government possesses exclusive jurisdiction to issue a notification specifying the multiplier factor for lands acquired for national highway projects under the National Highways Act, 1956. Thus, the Court quashed the State Government’s notification to the extent they purported to apply to such acquisitions. Further, the award which had incorrectly applied the multiplier of 1.00, was also quashed.
The Court also directed the Competent Authority to issue a fresh award within six weeks, applying the multiplier factor of 2.00 as stipulated in the Central Government’s notification of February 9, 2016. The Court also preserved the petitioners’ right to seek further remedy regarding the quantum of compensation under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act after the fresh award is issued.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat observed an ‘obvious conflict’ between the multiplier factor specified by the Central Government and that specified by the State Government. The Bench noted that Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act empowers only the Central Government to issue notifications for land acquisition for national highways, and the State Government has absolutely no power in this regard.
Therefore, the State Government’s notification and GRs, to the extent they pertained to national highways, were found to ‘trench upon the power’ of the Central Government. The Bench also dismissed the State’s argument regarding the doubling of acquisition costs, stating that the State lacked the power to specify the multiplier and that the financial liability rests with the NHAI, a Central Government agency.
Lastly, the Bench rejected the contention that an alternative remedy was available under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, reasoning that a statutory arbitrator, being a State functionary, would not be empowered to decide on the conflict between Central and State notifications.
Briefly, the petitioners are owners of land in Village Odha, District Nashik, which was subject to acquisition for the Surat-Nashik-Ahmednagar Greenfield Section of a national highway. The acquisition was initiated by the Union of India through a notification under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956, on November 1, 2021.
A conflict arose regarding the applicable multiplier factor for calculating compensation. The Central Government, via a notification dated February 9, 2016, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act of 2013), had specified a multiplier of 2.00 for rural areas. However, the State Government of Maharashtra issued a notification on October 5, 2021, and Government Resolutions (GRs) on October 6, 2021, and January 14, 2022, stipulating a multiplier factor of 1.00 for lands acquired for national highways.
The petitioners’ objection to the application of the 1.00 multiplier was rejected by the Competent Authority. During the pendency of the petition challenging the State’s notifications, an award was passed on January 13, 2023, applying the 1.00 multiplier, which led the petitioners to amend their petition to also challenge the award itself.
Appearances:
Advocates Pralhad Paranjape, Rahul Punjabi, Shweta More and Ishan Shroff, for the Petitioners
Advocates Shehnaz V. Bharucha, Ashutosh Mishra, A. A. Ansari, for the Respondent (Central Government)
AGP M. S. Bane, for the Respondent (State authorities)
Advocate Rakesh Singh, for the Respondent (NHAI)
