Legal Clarity on Rehabilitation and Resettlement Entitlements in National Highway Land Acquisitions.
25 October 2024
Land Acquistion >> Property & Real Estate
A recent ruling from the High Court has brought into sharp focus the application of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("2013 Act") in cases of land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 ("NH Act"). The decision addresses the legal entitlements for landowners and project-affected persons, particularly concerning the rehabilitation and resettlement provisions under the 2013 Act, which had been contested in several writ petitions.
The primary question posed was whether the provisions of the 2013 Act, which include compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement, should apply in the case of land acquisition under the NH Act, and if so, how these provisions are to be implemented by the authorities involved.
Key Legal Background:
The 2013 Act, which was enacted to bring transparency and fairness to land acquisition processes, provides a comprehensive framework for determining compensation (First Schedule), rehabilitation and resettlement (Second Schedule), and infrastructure amenities (Third Schedule) for those affected by land acquisition.
However, the NH Act, which is a separate legislation for acquiring land for the construction and development of national highways, was initially exempt from the full applicability of the 2013 Act. Section 105 of the 2013 Act provides that certain provisions would not apply to the enactments listed in the Fourth Schedule, including the NH Act. However, Section 105(3) mandates that the Central Government shall, within one year of the enactment of the 2013 Act, extend the relevant provisions of the Act—specifically those in the First, Second, and Third Schedules—to acquisitions under the Fourth Schedule, with certain modifications.
This was done via Ordinance No. 9 of 2014, followed by further ordinances in 2015, and later the 2015 Order under Section 113 of the 2013 Act, which ensured that the benefits of the 2013 Act, including compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement, would apply to national highway acquisitions from January 1, 2015.
Case Background:
In the present case, the petitioners, whose land was acquired for the Pune-Solapur National Highway No. 9, contended that, apart from compensation under the First Schedule of the 2013 Act, they were entitled to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Second Schedule. The petitioners argued that their claims were being rejected in a mechanical manner, with authorities relying on a Manual of Guidelines issued in 2018 rather than directly applying the relevant provisions of the 2013 Act.
The crux of the petitioners' grievance was that the Competent Authorities under the NH Act were not fully considering their entitlements under the Second and Third Schedules of the 2013 Act, including housing, subsistence grants, and other forms of support for affected families, despite these being clearly applicable under the law. Instead, the authorities had rejected their applications based on a generic application of the Manual, which did not take into account the specific legal provisions of the 2013 Act.
Judicial Findings:
The High Court, after reviewing the case, concluded that the 2013 Act’s provisions, particularly those relating to rehabilitation and resettlement, must indeed apply to acquisitions under the NH Act. The Court emphasized that the 2015 Order and the 2017 Notification by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways were clear in extending the benefits of the 2013 Act’s First, Second, and Third Schedules to national highway acquisitions.
However, the Court found that the Competent Authorities had, in many instances, failed to apply their minds to the individual circumstances of the petitioners' cases. Instead, the authorities had relied solely on the Manual, which, while helpful as a guiding document, cannot supersede the law. The Court noted that the Manual of Guidelines, published in December 2018, was intended merely as an aid to the implementation of the law, not as a substitute for it.
The Court further observed that in rejecting the petitioners' claims, the Competent Authorities had not provided detailed reasons or examined the specific benefits under the Second and Third Schedules of the 2013 Act that should apply in each case. These entitlements, such as housing, employment, subsistence grants, and infrastructure amenities, are meant to address the displacement and hardships caused by land acquisition and should not be denied merely due to procedural shortcomings.
Conclusion and Directions:
The Court, in its final order, quashed the rejections issued by the Competent Authorities and directed that the claims for rehabilitation and resettlement benefits be reconsidered in light of the specific provisions of the Second and Third Schedules of the 2013 Act. The Court mandated that each petitioner's case be individually assessed, with reasoned orders issued based on the relevant legal framework, ensuring that the entitlements were applied correctly.
The key points of the Court's decision are:
Rejection of Claims: The blanket rejection of rehabilitation and resettlement claims based on the Manual of Guidelines was found to be in violation of the law.
Individual Assessments: Competent Authorities must individually assess each case and apply the Second and Third Schedules of the 2013 Act to determine the benefits.
Reasoned Orders: The authorities must issue reasoned orders explaining why certain entitlements are granted or denied, ensuring transparency and fairness in the process.
Timeline for Reconsideration: The Competent Authorities were directed to decide the claims within 12 weeks after the petitioners submitted their specific representations.
This ruling reiterates the importance of the 2013 Act in protecting the rights of landowners and project-affected persons, ensuring that they are provided with fair compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement benefits. It also underscores the need for authorities to approach land acquisition with due diligence and in full compliance with the statutory provisions, rather than relying on procedural guidelines that do not have the force of law.
Implications for Future Land Acquisitions:
This judgment clarifies the legal position for future acquisitions under the NH Act, ensuring that the provisions of the 2013 Act regarding compensation, rehabilitation, and resettlement are fully applied. It also highlights the importance of careful legal interpretation and application of the law by authorities to avoid blanket rejections and ensure that affected families are not denied their lawful entitlements.
With the Court’s intervention, it is hoped that there will be greater consistency and fairness in the land acquisition process for national highways, and that the affected families will receive the benefits they are entitled to under the law.