Madras High Court
R.Pandurangan vs The Union Of India on 22 March, 2022
W.P.No.16227, 16229 and 16231of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.Nos.16227, 16229 and 16231 of 2011
and M.P.No.1 of 2011 (in all three petitions)
R.Pandurangan ... Petitioner in W.P.Nos.16227&16229/2011
P.Prema ...Petitioner in W.P.No.16231 of 2011
Vs.
1.The Union of India,
rep.by its Secretary,
Ministry of Home, Transport and Highways,
New Delhi.
2.The Authorised Officer cum Special District,
Revenue Officer,
National Highways No.5 ( Acquisition),
Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur District,
Camp Office, Thasildar Office,
Poonamallee,
3.The Project Director and Deputy General Manager (Technic),
National Highway Authority of India,
8th Floor, Spic House,
Guindy,
Chennai 600 032.
4.The Project Manager,
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16227, 16229 and 16231of 2011
Larsen and Turbo Pvt. Ltd.,
Pudhuvaiyal. ...Respondents in all petitions
Common Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring that the provisions of section
3(A) to 3 (J) of the National Highways Act 1956 as amended by Central
Act 16 of 1977 is ultravires the Constitution being violative of Article 14 of
Constitution of India or in the alternative declare section 3 (G) and 3 (J) of
the National Highways Act 1956 as amended by Central Act 16 of 1977 is
ultravires the constitution being violative of Article 14 of Constitution of
India.
For Petitioner in all W.Ps : Mr.J.Sivanandaraaj
For RR1 in all W.Ps : Mr.S.R.Sundaram, Senior Counsel
For RR2 in all W.Ps : Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
Special Government Pleader
For RR4 in all W.Ps : Mr.G.Adithyaraj
for M/s.Wilson Associates
Common Order
The petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking issuance of
Writ of Declaration declaring that the provisions of section 3(A) to 3 (J) of
the National Highways Act, 1956, as amended by Central Act 16 of 1977,
is ultravires the Constitution being violative of Article 14 of Constitution of
India or in the alternative declare section 3 (G) and 3 (J) of the National
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16227, 16229 and 16231of 2011
Highways Act , 1956 as amended by Central Act 16 of 1977 is ultravires the
constitution being violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the owners of
the property and their lands were acquired under the National Highways
Act, 1956. The grievance of the petitioners is that the provisions of Section
3(A) to 3(J) of the National Highways Act, 1956 as amended by Central
Act 16 of 1977 is ultravires the constitution and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Challenging the same, these writ petitions are filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that
the very same issue was came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
decision reported in 2019 (9) SCC 304 (Union of India and another V.
Tarsem Singh and others), wherein it was held that the provision of Section
3-J is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore,
declared to be unconstitutional and the respective land owners were ordered
to be entitled to receive compensation in terms of Section 23(1-A) and (2)
and interest payable in terms of Section 28 proviso and therefore, this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16227, 16229 and 16231of 2011
may allow these Writ Petitions.
4. This Court has carefully gone through the materials placed on
record. It is relevant to extract Paragraph 52 of the above said judgment:
''41. There is no doubt that the learned Solicitor
General, in the aforesaid two orders, has conceded the issue
raised in these cases. This assumes importance in view of the
plea of Shri Divan that the impugned judgments should be
set aside on the ground that when the arbitral awards did
not provide for solatium or interest, no Section 34 petition
having been filed by the landowners on this score, the
Division Bench judgments that are impugned before us ought
not to have allowed solatium and/or interest. Ordinarily, we
would have acceded to this plea, but given the fact that the
Government itself is of the view that solatium and interest
should be granted even in cases that arise between 1997 and
2015, in the interest of justice we decline to interfere with
such orders, given our discretionary jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We therefore declare
that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to
solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1A) and (2)
and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso will apply
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16227, 16229 and 16231of 2011
to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act.
Consequently, the provision of Section 3J is, to this extent,
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and,
therefore, declared to be unconstitutional. Accordingly,
Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 9599/2019 is dismissed.''
5. In view of the above said decision, the part of the prayer sought in
these Writ Petitions, challenging Section 3-J of the National Highways Act,
1956, is answered and therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed insofar as the
prayer relates to Section 3(J) of the National Highways Act and dismissed
with respect of other provisions. No costs. Consequently connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
22.03.2022
sk
To
1.The Secretary,
Union of India,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16227, 16229 and 16231of 2011
Ministry of Home, Transport and Highways,
New Delhi.
2.The Authorised Officer cum Special District,
Revenue Officer,
National Highways No.5 ( Acquisition),
Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur District,
Camp Office, Thasildar Office,
Poonamallee,
3.The Project Director and Deputy General Manager (Technic),
National Highway Authority of India,
8th Floor, Spic House,
Guindy,
Chennai 600 032.
M.DHANDAPANI.,J.
Sk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16227, 16229 and 16231of 2011
W.P.No.16227, 16229 and 16231 of 2011
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
