The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that it was, prima facie, not acceptable for compensation disputes arising out of land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, to be decided by government-appointed bureaucrats, terming it a systemic disadvantage faced by landowners under the Act.
Observing that determination of compensation is a purely judicial exercise, the Court favoured amending the National Highways Act so that such disputes are decided by a judicially trained adjudicators, noting that while compensation disputes under all other land acquisition laws are adjudicated by judicially trained authorities, the Highways Act alone entrusts the exercise entirely to bureaucrats.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan made the observations while hearing a case involving a builder and the Central government.
The Bench observed that the principal land acquisition law ensures that compensation is determined by a judicially trained mind. The National Highways Act, however, carves out an exception by vesting the adjudicatory role in bureaucrats.
“The procedure under the principal land acquisition law ensures that the determination of compensation, which is purely a judicial exercise, is undertaken by a judicially trained mind,” the Court observed, adding that “this is the only enactment where an exception has been carved out and bureaucrats have been vested with this role. Prima facie, that is not acceptable to us.”
The Bench further noted that lands adjoining national highways generally command higher market values and recalled that farmers were denied solatium and interest under the National Highways Act until the Supreme Court intervened.
CJI Surya Kant observed that under the ordinary land acquisition law, although the Land Acquisition Collector is a civil servant, “there is a judicial forum where compensation can be determined by a judicially trained mind.” Under the National Highways Act, he added, “that safeguard is completely absent.”
Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the Bench that a proposal to amend the National Highways Act was under active consideration so that compensation disputes could be decided by a judicially trained forum.
Taking note of the submission, the Bench indicated that it would await the government’s policy decision, observing: “We are only proposing the amendment. If the Government is examining the issue, we would welcome that… We can wait for some time.”