Plea against Salem expressway dismissed

Holding that Section 105 and Fourth schedule is neither unconstitutional nor null and void,  the division bench comprising Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice V Bhavani Subbaroyan, said, “Section 105 of the RFCT Act has integrated the thirteen enactments including NH Act listed in the Fourth Schedule, and if it were to be struck down, the benefits extended with the applicability of the RFCT Act to those 13 enactments will go away and each of the 13 enactments would operate separately thereby defeating the need and purpose of enacting RFCT Act to bring about an uniform procedure for compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement.”

Also, holding that the determination of compensation is more advantageous to the land owner under the RFCT Act, the bench said, “The NH Act does not provide for the procedure for rehabilitation and resettlement nor setting up of infrastructural facilities as envisaged in RFCT Act. Thus, if Section 105 is struck down, the NH Act will govern the field and the acquisition will proceed under the NH Act and the compensation will have to be determined under the said Act.”

“This undoubtedly would be prejudicial to the interest of the land owners. Therefore, we fail to understand as to what benefit would accrue to the land owners by declaring Section 105 as unconstitutional,” the bench added.

Poovulgin Nanbargal represented by one of its trustees G Sundarrajan had moved a public interest litigation contending that while RFCT Act envisages a humane process of land acquisition, Section 105 prevents such a beneficiary provision for those whose lands are sought to be acquired under the Fourth Schedule to the Act, which contains 13 enactments including the NH Act.

The petitioner’s counsel M Radhakrishnan had contended that Section 105 excludes the applicability of consultation with the concerned Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation as the case may be, whenever the appropriate Government intends to acquire land for a public purpose. Thus, by inclusion of the NH Act in Section 105, this very important requirement has been done away with. 

However, the bench in its order while holding that Section 105 is a valid legislation clarified, “We are not dealing with the validity of acquisition proceedings for the subject Highway, which is the subject matter of challenge in a batch of Writ Petitions.”