CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has upheld Sec. 105 of the Fourth Schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (RFCTA) introduced to help the authorities concerned to acquire land for laying the Rs 10,000- crore Chennai-Salem green corridor project.
It is neither unconstitutional nor null and void and is held to be a valid piece of legislation, a division bench of Justices T S Sivagnanam and V Bhavani Subbaroyan said on Tuesday. The judge was dismissing a PIL petition from G Sundarrajan of Poovulagin Nanbargal, an NGO, seeking to declare the section and its Fourth Schedule, as well as the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated under the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act) in respect of the proposed project as unconstitutional, null and void.
Petitioner contended that contrary to the very object of the RFCT Act, Sec 105 has been inserted, which held that the provisions of the RFCT Act, shall not apply to the land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule. This schedule contains 13 enactments and one of them is the National Highways Act. The section provides that the Union of India shall apply the provisions of the Act relating to determination of compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement to the land acquisition made under NH Act and other enactments.
However, this section operates against the application of Chapters II, III & IV of the RFCT Act to the land acquisitions effected under any of the enactments mentioned in the Fourth Schedule including the NH Act. There is no rationale whatsoever for excluding the provisions of the Chapter II, III & IV from the purview of acquisition under the enactments mentioned in the Fourth Schedule.
By including the 13 enactments, it would be destructive to the very objective of the RFCT Act, which is a comprehensive legislation with regard to land acquisition for any public purpose, petitioner contended.
Rejecting the contention, the judges pointed out that the land-owners or land losers are in no way prejudiced by the inclusion of the 13 enactments in the Fourth Schedule as their interest with regard to compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement has been fully safeguarded as the relevant provision of the RFCT Act has been made applicable to the NH Act.
“Therefore, when we interpret the words ‘similarly situated’ persons in the instant case, we must look beyond the classification and look into the purpose of the law. The purpose of the NH Act is for a linear project, a public purpose for maintenance and formation of National Highways.
Thus, we find that there is no discrimination nor violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and the intelligible differentia for including 13 enactments in the Fourth Schedule is writ large on the face of the enactments, the purpose for which those enactments were enacted, the objects they seek to achieve and the land acquisition under those legislation form a different class than the lands acquired for public purpose as defined under the RFCT Act,” the bench said.