Bombay High Court Quashes Rejection of Rehabilitation Entitlements, Orders Fresh Consideration of Claims Under Second and Third Schedules of 2013 Act in National Highway Land Acquisition Cases

Court’s Decision:
The Bombay High Court set aside the Competent Authority’s rejection of rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements under the 2013 Act for land acquisition cases involving the National Highways Act (NH Act). The court directed the Competent Authorities to reconsider the petitioners’ claims under the Second and Third Schedules of the 2013 Act. The court emphasized the need for reasoned orders and adherence to legal provisions, rather than a mechanical reliance on guidelines.

Facts:
The petitioners, affected by land acquisition for national highways, claimed entitlements under the Second and Third Schedules of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act). Despite receiving compensation under the First Schedule, their requests for additional entitlements for rehabilitation and resettlement were denied. They argued that the Competent Authority’s rejection relied on a manual of guidelines rather than an objective application of the 2013 Act’s substantive provisions.

Issues:
The central issue was whether the 2013 Act’s provisions for rehabilitation, resettlement, and infrastructure amenities apply to land acquired under the NH Act and, if so, whether the Competent Authority erred in denying these benefits.

Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioners contended that the 2013 Act’s Second and Third Schedule entitlements should apply in addition to the monetary compensation under the First Schedule. They highlighted a 2017 Notification that clarified the applicability of the 2013 Act to NH Act land acquisitions, affirming that entitlements to rehabilitation and resettlement were intended to be over and above compensation.

Respondent’s Arguments:
The Competent Authority argued that only monetary compensation under the First Schedule of the 2013 Act was applicable, and the guidelines specified that families of landowners were not entitled to further benefits. It also contended that rehabilitation was not warranted, and the Manual of Guidelines clarified the scope of entitlements.

Analysis of the Law:
The court examined Section 105 of the 2013 Act, which initially exempted certain enactments like the NH Act from the Act’s provisions. However, Section 105(3) allowed the government to apply the first three schedules of the 2013 Act to acquisitions under these exempted enactments. The court reviewed the 2015 Order, which extended these schedules’ benefits to acquisitions under the NH Act, and the 2017 Notification, which confirmed the application of the 2013 Act’s schedules to NH Act acquisitions.

Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors., emphasizing the legal interpretation of Section 24 of the 2013 Act. The decision underscored the protection of landowners’ rights under the 2013 Act, further supporting the petitioners’ claims for entitlements.

Court’s Reasoning:
The court reasoned that the Competent Authority had incorrectly relied on guidelines rather than applying the Second and Third Schedules of the 2013 Act. It underscored that the Manual of Guidelines was intended as an aid, not a substitute for statutory provisions. The court emphasized the need for the Competent Authorities to engage in a case-by-case analysis to determine the appropriate entitlements under the 2013 Act.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the previous rejection of entitlements and directed the Competent Authorities to reconsider the petitioners’ claims in accordance with the Second and Third Schedules of the 2013 Act. The court allowed petitioners to file specific representations within two weeks, with the Competent Authorities expected to pass reasoned orders within twelve weeks thereafter.

Implications:
This decision reinforces the applicability of the 2013 Act’s rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements to NH Act acquisitions, setting a precedent for fair and lawful treatment of affected landowners. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that administrative guidelines do not override statutory rights. The ruling emphasizes the need for Competent Authorities to apply statutory provisions with diligence, potentially impacting future land acquisition proceedings under the NH Act.

Also Read – Sikkim High Court Grants 278-Day Delay Condonation in Civil Revision Petition Filing, Citing “Sufficient Cause” and “Credible and Justified” Explanation; Hearing Scheduled for October 28