Right to Fair Compensation Act does not fully govern land acquisition under NH rules: HC

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has held that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not fully govern land acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act merely because of a Central Government notification issued under Section 105 of the 2013 Act. Justice Easwaran S delivered the judgment. The case involved members of the family of a trustee of Thiruvangat Para Temple, Chelambra. Certain portions of the temple land were acquired for the widening of a national highway. After compensation of ₹2.04 crore was determined under the National Highways Act, the District Collector issued a notice seeking documents to establish ownership and possession for disbursing the compensation. The temple is under the custody of the Malabar Devaswom Board for management. However, after notice was issued, members of the hereditary trustee family did not appear to establish their rights. Due to rival claims over entitlement, the compensation amount was deposited before the District Court. The reference court treated the matter as one under Section 77 of the 2013 Act and passed orders in favour of the Malabar Devaswom Board. The trustee family then challenged the proceedings, arguing that acquisitions under the National Highways Act continue to be governed by Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, under which no statutory appeal lies. The High Court examined whether the provisions of the 2013 Act apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956, in view of a 2015 notification issued under Section 105 of the 2013 Act. The 2015 notification made provisions of the 2013 Act relating to the determination of compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement applicable to enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule, which includes the National Highways Act, 1956. The court noted that the 2013 Act applies in two parts: determination of compensation and procedures before the rehabilitation authority, and said the purpose of the notification was only to ensure proper compensation so landowners are not deprived of their rights. The court observed that it would be “far-fetched” to hold that once compensation is determined under the National Highways Act, further proceedings would continue under the 2013 Act. It said the two Acts operate in different fields and there cannot be cross-application between them. The court held that the 2015 notification only imported provisions relating to “determination of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement” and did not replace the procedural framework under the NH Act. It further stated that procedures under both Acts are entirely different and operate on separate legal foundations. The court clarified that disputes relating to entitlement or apportionment under the NH Act must be referred under Section 3H(4) of that Act to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. In contrast, Section 77 of the 2013 Act applies to proceedings before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority constituted under Section 51 of the Act. The High Court held that the District Court had acted without jurisdiction by treating the matter as a reference under Section 77 of the 2013 Act. It also relied on the Division Bench judgment in Nafeesa v Deputy Collector (2013 (4) KHC 868), which held that no appeal lies from a decision under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act. Since the reference itself was incompetent under Section 77, the court declared the order a nullity and said parties cannot be forced to pursue an appellate remedy under the 2013 Act against an order passed without jurisdiction. Exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court set aside both the original award and the order refusing impleadment of the petitioners.