Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court, in a batch of appeals filed by the Union of India, considered the validity of the non-grant of solatium and interest under the National Highways Act, 1956, as compared to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had struck down Section 3J of the National Highways Act as violative of Article 14, holding that the exclusion of solatium and interest was discriminatory. The Supreme Court reversed this decision. The Court examined the relevant provisions of both Acts and noted that the National Highways Act is a complete code that expressly excludes the application of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court held that solatium and interest are statutory rights, not fundamental rights, and the legislature is entitled to provide different compensation schemes for different public purposes. The Court distinguished between cases of requisition followed by acquisition and direct acquisition, and found that the line of authorities under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 and the Defence of India Act, 1971, which upheld non-grant of solatium, were correctly applied. The Court also rejected the argument that the 1997 Amendment Act was protected by Article 31-C, as its object was speedy implementation of highway projects, not furtherance of the Directive Principle under Article 39(b). The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, and held that the landowners are not entitled to solatium and interest under the National Highways Act.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Discrimination - Solatium and Interest - National Highways Act, 1956, Section 3J - The non-grant of solatium and interest under the National Highways Act, which are available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does not violate Article 14 as the National Highways Act is a complete code and the exclusion is not manifestly arbitrary. The court held that solatium and interest are statutory rights, not fundamental rights, and the legislature can provide different compensation schemes for different purposes. (Paras 2-4) B) Constitutional Law - Article 31-C - Protection - National Highways Act, 1956, Sections 3A to 3J - The 1997 Amendment Act to the National Highways Act, which introduced Sections 3A to 3J, is not protected by Article 31-C as its object is speedy implementation of highway projects, not furtherance of Directive Principle under Article 39(b). (Para 5) C) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Solatium - Compulsory Acquisition - The court distinguished between cases of requisition followed by acquisition and direct acquisition, holding that solatium is not an integral part of compensation in all cases. The line of authorities under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 and Defence of India Act, 1971, which upheld non-grant of solatium, were correctly applied. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the non-grant of solatium and interest under the National Highways Act, 1956, which are available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and whether Section 3J of the National Highways Act should be struck down to that extent.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and held that the landowners are not entitled to solatium and interest under the National Highways Act, 1956. Section 3J of the Act is not violative of Article 14.
Law Points
- National Highways Act is a complete code
- exclusion of solatium and interest not violative of Article 14
- solatium and interest are statutory rights not fundamental rights
- Article 31-C protection not applicable
- distinction between requisition and acquisition cases
