Court’s Decision:
The Patna High Court allowed a batch of writ petitions challenging the award of compensation for acquisition of land for National Highway-106 under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Court quashed the entire award passed under Section 3G of the Act, holding that the failure to serve personal notice under Section 3G(3) upon landowners was fatal to the acquisition process. The competent authority was directed to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 3G from the stage of issuance of individual notice, in accordance with law.
Facts:
The petitioners were recorded raiyats and owners of land acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for construction of NH-106 in Bihar. The land was notified for acquisition under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, and further declaration under Section 3D was published.
The grievance of the petitioners centered around the compensation proceedings under Section 3G. The petitioners contended that no individual notice under Section 3G(3) was ever served upon them, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to file objections or make representations regarding the compensation payable for their acquired land.
They alleged that the award was passed without any knowledge or hearing, violating the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements. They also contended that the market value was fixed arbitrarily without considering relevant materials or giving them a chance to present evidence.
Issues:
- Whether the competent authority failed to serve notice under Section 3G(3) of the National Highways Act before determining compensation.
- Whether such failure vitiates the entire award passed under Section 3G.
- Whether the petitioners were deprived of their legal and constitutional rights due to lack of notice and hearing.
Petitioners’ Arguments:
The petitioners asserted that although their lands had been acquired, they were never given any individual notice under Section 3G(3) of the Act. As a result, they were unable to participate in the compensation proceedings or submit objections or claims regarding the amount. They claimed that this omission violated not just the statutory scheme of the National Highways Act, but also Article 300-A of the Constitution, which protects the right to property.
They argued that the acquisition proceedings, particularly the award under Section 3G, were illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside on the ground of denial of natural justice. They relied on various decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts to emphasize the mandatory nature of the notice provision under Section 3G(3) and its impact on the legality of the award.
Respondents’ Arguments:
The respondents, including the National Highways Authority of India and the competent authority, contended that the acquisition proceedings were validly undertaken under the National Highways Act and that wide publicity was given to the notices. They submitted that notification under Section 3A and declaration under Section 3D were published in newspapers and gazette, fulfilling the statutory requirements.
It was further contended that the petitioners’ claims were delayed and that some of the petitioners had even accepted compensation without protest. The authorities argued that acquisition for national infrastructure cannot be derailed due to hyper-technical objections.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court examined the scheme of the National Highways Act, particularly Sections 3A to 3G. Section 3G(3) requires the competent authority to give notice to the landowner to appear and make representations regarding compensation. The Court emphasized that this notice must be served individually to afford the landowners an opportunity to be heard.
The Court relied on the principle that acquisition of private property without proper notice and hearing violates Article 300-A of the Constitution and principles of natural justice. It held that compliance with Section 3G(3) is not a mere formality, but a mandatory procedural safeguard that directly affects the legality of the compensation award.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court placed reliance on the following judgments:
- Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 4 SCC 210: The Supreme Court held that the right to property is a constitutional right and cannot be infringed without following due process.
- Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2011) 9 SCC 354: Emphasized the necessity of individual notice in acquisition matters.
- Patna High Court in Manoj Kumar v. Union of India: Held that failure to issue notice under Section 3G(3) vitiates the award.
The High Court held that these precedents establish that statutory notice is essential and not replaceable by public advertisements or newspaper notifications.
Court’s Reasoning:
Justice Dr. Anshuman reasoned that the statutory scheme of the National Highways Act mandates compliance with individual notice requirements. The landowners must be given a reasonable opportunity to contest the valuation and present their case. In the absence of such notice, any determination of compensation becomes an ex parte exercise and is liable to be quashed.
The Court observed that the respondent authorities did not deny the fact that no notice under Section 3G(3) was individually served upon the petitioners. The mere publication of general notices or gazette notifications cannot substitute the mandatory personal notice.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the entire award passed without individual notice under Section 3G(3) was unsustainable in law.
Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the award passed by the competent authority under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 in respect of all petitioners. It directed the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 3G from the stage of issuing notice to each landowner individually and then proceed to determine compensation in accordance with law. The Court also clarified that the acquisition per se was not disturbed, only the compensation proceedings were set aside.
Implications:
This judgment has wide implications for land acquisition processes under the National Highways Act. It reinforces that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, continues to enjoy constitutional protection and cannot be diluted by procedural shortcuts.
The ruling will impact pending and future land acquisitions where authorities may have bypassed individual notice requirements. The judgment sets a clear precedent that any award made without compliance with Section 3G(3) is legally void and must be redone.
It also affirms the judiciary’s continuing role in protecting citizens from administrative arbitrariness in compulsory acquisition of land.
FAQs:
Q1. Can compensation be awarded without personal notice to landowners under the National Highways Act?
No. The Telangana High Court held that personal notice under Section 3G(3) is mandatory. Without it, the compensation award is void.
Q2. Does this judgment cancel the land acquisition itself?
No. The acquisition remains valid. The Court only quashed the compensation proceedings due to lack of individual notice.
Q3. What happens next for the landowners?
The competent authority must now issue fresh notices to the landowners and determine compensation afresh after hearing them.