The Supreme Court of India has expressed concerns regarding the current procedure for resolving land compensation disputes under the National Highways Act, 1956. In a recent hearing of the case M/S Riar Builders Pvt Ltd v. Union of India, the Court criticized the involvement of bureaucrats in these disputes, emphasizing that such matters should be handled by judicial authorities.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, highlighted that disputes of this nature require a judicial approach. The Bench noted that, unlike other land acquisition laws where compensation determinations are made by judicially trained individuals, the National Highways Act delegates this responsibility to government-appointed officials.
The Court expressed that this exception, unique to the National Highways Act, is not ideal. It emphasized the importance of a judicially trained mind in determining compensation, which is deemed a judicial exercise in principle. CJI Surya Kant pointed out that lands near national highways often have higher market values, and there have been instances where farmers were denied rightful compensation until the Supreme Court intervened.
The Chief Justice remarked, “The process under the principal land acquisition law ensures that compensation is determined by a judicially trained mind. The absence of this safeguard in the National Highways Act is, prima facie, unacceptable to us.”
Addressing the Attorney General for India, R Venkataramani, the Bench was informed that there is a proposal under consideration to amend the National Highways Act, allowing compensation disputes to be resolved by a judicially trained forum. The Attorney General conveyed that this amendment is actively being evaluated by the government.
More Read
Consequently, the Court decided to wait for the government’s policy decision on this matter. CJI Surya Kant stated, “We are only proposing the amendment. If the Government is examining the issue, we would welcome that. There is no need for us to make a premature decision if a legislative solution is forthcoming. We can afford to wait for some time.”
This development signifies a potential shift towards ensuring fair and equitable compensation for landowners affected by land acquisitions under the National Highways Act. The Supreme Court’s observations underscore the need for judicial oversight in such disputes to protect the interests of landowners.
