The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union government, Project Director of National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), and others in response to a plea challenging the mandatory arbitration proceedings for determining compensation in land acquisition processes under the National Highways Act. The bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan agreed to examine the plea which argues that the imposition of mandatory arbitration proceedings on the land-loser with a pre-determined arbitrator violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
The writ petition, filed through advocate Madhusmita Bora, also questions the constitutional validity of Section 3J of the National Highways Act. It contends that the Supreme Court has already declared this section as unconstitutional and violating Article 14 in various judgments.
Currently, under the National Highways Act, if the compensation determined by the Competent Authority is unacceptable to either NHAI or the land owner, an application can be made under Section 3G(5), empowering an arbitrator to decide on the compensation amount. This provision keeps the compensation dispute out of the jurisdiction of the courts, thereby mandating arbitration proceedings for the land-loser.
The plea highlights that the arbitrator, who is unilaterally appointed by the Central government and often a government employee, is inherently biased due to having an interest in the outcome of the dispute since the land is acquired by the government for its use.
The petition argues that the mandatory statutory arbitration, where the appointment of the arbitrator is non-consensual and tipped in favor of the Central government, is unreasonable for the land-loser who has no recourse to the courts.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the matter on January 29.
In challenging this mandatory arbitration provision, the plea raises important constitutional questions regarding the right to fair and impartial adjudication in determining compensation for land acquisition. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for land-losers under the National Highways Act, potentially shifting the balance of power in determining compensation disputes.
The Supreme Court’s examination of this plea is eagerly anticipated by various stakeholders, including land-losers, the NHAI, and the Central government. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences and reshape the framework for compensation determination in land acquisition processes under the National Highways Act, 1956.
