“Not inclined to entertain the attack launched against the Highways Act,” says Supreme Court

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India stated that “the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, is not liable to be invalidated on the ground that its provisions manifest discrimination or arbitrariness when compared with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013.” The matter was presented before a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justice PV Sanjay Kumar, and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari. In this case, the consequential prayer of the two petitioners was to direct the authorities not to acquire their lands, seeking a declaration that the Act of 2015 was ultra vires the Constitution and a consequential direction to the authorities not to acquire lands. The High Court noted that the validity of the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act was upheld by the Supreme Court. The High Court held stated that all the material was placed before the President of India and, therefore, it could not be said that there was any non-application of mind by the President of India while granting assent. It accepted the contention of the writ petitioners that, as the new LA Act received Presidential assent on 27.09.2013, all three State Acts became void on that date itself. The matter was then mentioned before the top Court for a hearing.

The Supreme Court bench stated that “ we are only dealing with the challenge to the validity of the Industrial Purposes Act and the Highways Act on the grounds of arbitrariness and breach of Article 14 of the Constitution and no more. “ The bench added as both petitioners seek to assail the validity of the Industrial Purposes Act only in the context of the acquisition proceedings initiated thereunder in relation to the lands purchased by them after issuance of the Public Notice their challenge was tainted and unacceptable in its very inception. They were both subsequent purchasers and were deemed to be aware of the acquisition proceedings.  The top Court determined that disparity and discrimination would be writ large between the two enactments and aspects relating to their implementation. In such a situation, the question of comparing the two legislations, for the purpose of making out a case under Article 14 of the Constitution, would not arise. It further added, “not inclined to entertain the attack launched against the Highways Act on the strength of the so-called disparity and discrimination in the norms and procedures prescribed therein when compared with the new LA Act.” The bench Concluded that the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, could not be invalidated on the ground that its provisions are at variance when compared with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition; Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013. The appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court bench.