KOTHARI, J. - (1.) WE are seized in the set of these writ petitions, with an important question of law as to validity and constitutionality of Section 3-J of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short "the Act of 1956" hereinafter) inserted in the said Act by the National Highway Laws Amendment) Act, 1997 w. e. f. 24. 1. 1997.
(2.) SECTION 3-J of the Act of 1956 excludes the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the acquisitions made under the National Highways Act. The provisions contained in SECTION 3, 3- A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D, 3-E, 3-F, 3-G, 3-H, 3-I and 3-J were inserted in the Act of 1956 by the said Amending Act of 1997 so as to provide for quicker and smoother acquisitions under the Act of 1956 of the land acquired for the said purpose as it was found that inordinate delay in the acquisition of the lands under the Land Acquisition Act was one of the main impediments in the speedy implementation of highways project and therefore, the said amendment was legislated by the Parliament in 1997. From the averments made in the writ petition of Banshi Lal Samariya, the facts of the said lead case taken into consideration for deciding the batch of these writ petitions are like this. The petitioner is the owner of land comprised in Khasra No. 951 of village Raila, Tehsil Banera, district Bhilwara. The lands in question measuring 605756' Sq. feets and the same are said to be non-agriculture i. e. "abadi" lands situated in the said village in the close vicinity of Railway Station and the said lands also adjoin the said National Highway. The said land in question was acquired under the provisions of the Act of 1956 and award under the said Act was passed by the competent authority on 28. 2. 2003 vide Annexure 2 filed by the petitioner alongwith writ petitioner awarding compensation @ Rs. 60,000/- per bigha. The said compensation appears to have been paid to the petitioners. However, the petitioners have sought further enhancement of compensation before the Arbitrator as provided in Section 3-G (2) of the Act, which is said to be still pending. The claim of the petitioners is that they are also entitled to be given solatium and interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which Act also should be held equally applicable simultaneously with the provisions of the Act of 1956 to the petitioners and the exclusion of applicability of the said Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by virtue of Section 3-J of the Act of 1956 should be held to be ultra-vires and illegal. The said writ petition has been contended by the National Highway Authority, respondent No. 3, who has filed a statement of objections in this Court as also by the respondents No. 2 and 4, who have also filed the separate replies to the writ petition. The Union of India though, served and represented has however not filed any reply to the writ petition. The petitioners have filed separate rejoinders to the aforesaid replies of the respondents. After hearing the learned counsel at length and going through the relevant record and case law cited before us, we proceed to decide the aforesaid question as below.
(3.) THE first objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Shri M. D. Purohit, Senior Advocate is that there cannot be two legislations by the same legislature on the same subject matter providing for discriminatory provisions and existence of two enactments on the same subject gives power to the State to give different treatment to land owners similarly situated and therefore, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We find ourselves unable to agree with the said submission of the learned counsel. The legislation, Parliament in the present case, is free to enact laws within its jurisdiction, which is described and delineated in the constitutional entries in the seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, list First being for the Parliament or Union, list Second for the State legislations and list Three being a Concurrent list. It is not even the case of the petitioners that power to enact the National Highway Act including the Amending Act of 1997 is not within the legislative competence of the Parliament. What is under challenge is that exclusion of earlier enactment i. e. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Amending Act of 1997 incorporating Section 3 to 3-J in the Act of 1956 excluding the applicability of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the acquisitions made for the purpose of construction of national highways under the Act of 1956, as amended. The Act of 1956 being the special law for speedy construction of national highways has excluded the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and there is no earthly valid reason to stop the Parliament from doing so. Special and emergent need of the day which are assessed and determined within the exclusive domain and wisdom of the legislative bodies giving birth to special laws from time to time is legislative function and the Courts can hardly interfere in that unless such laws are questioned and tested on the anvil of well settled constitutional para-meters. We do not see any such ground for striking down the said Amendment in the Act of 1956 including the amendment which excludes the applicability of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As a matter of fact, the amendments introduced by the Act No. 16 of 1997 is a self contained code providing for speedy and expeditious acquisition of land for the purpose of construction of national highways. Section 3 of the Act of 1956 defines "competent authority" and "land". Section 3-A gives power to Central Government to acquire land for the purpose of building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or a part thereof. Section 3-B gives power to enter for survey etc. Section 3-C incorporates the principles of natural justice and provides for hearing of objections by any person interested in the land within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification under sub- section (1) of Section 3-A, which objections shall be decided by the competent authority after hearing such objections and making such further enquiry as such competent thinks necessary. Section 3-D enables the Central Government to declare by notification in the Official Gazette that land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes mentioned in Section 3-A and Section 3-D (2) provides that on publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Section 3-E provides that where any land has vested in the Central Government u/s. 3-D (2) and amount determined by the competent authority under Section 3-G with respect to such land has been deposited with the competent authority by the Central Government, the competent authority, say by notice in writing direct the owner as well as any of the person, who may be in possession of such land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the competent authority or any person duly authorised by it within 60 days of the service of the notice. On refusal to hand over the possession appropriate coercive measures can be taken. Section 3-F provides for right to enter into the land where the land had vested in the Central Government. Section 3-G provides for determination of amount payable as compensation. Sub-section (7) of Section 3-G clearly lays down the guidelines for determination of the compensation and the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification u/s. 3-A of the Act is the principal criteria for award of compensation. The damages, if any, sustained by any person interested at the time of taking possession of the land by reason of the severing of such land from other land or such acquisition rhhulting in any damage to the other immovable property or even for shifting the place of residence or business, the expenses incurred for the same are taken into consideration for determining the amount payable under Section 3-G of the Act, which may be determined by the competent authority or upon further reference under sub-section (5) of Section 3-G by the Arbitrator. Section 3-H provides for depositing and payment of the amount of compensation. Section 3-I gives powers of civil Court to the competent authority and Section 3-J provides that nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shall apply to acquisition under this Act. ;