SC flags discrepancies in compensation regime under National Highways Act, 1956
A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant asks Centre to revisit law, consider desirability of bringing parity in the matter
Highlighting discrepancies in the regime for grant of compensation for land under the National Highways Act, 1956, the Supreme Court has urged the Centre to revisit the law to address landowners’ concerns.
A three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant pointed out that the landowners whose land was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 for construction of national highways were placed at a disadvantageous position compared to those covered under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
The top court said that “the land owners, whose land is acquired under the 1956 Act, vis-à-vis the land owners whose lands are acquired now under the New Act, have been treated as separate classes, apparently without any intelligible differentia. This leads to grave heartburn among the land owners of the first category, namely, those whose lands are acquired under the 1956 Act.”
It said, “Keeping these factors in view, we implore and suggest that the Union of India should revisit the legislative scheme and consider the desirability of bringing parity in the matter of providing a mechanism for the determination of the market value of acquired land with reference to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.”
Displaying judicial restraint, the top court said, “Since the issue primarily falls within the domain of the legislature, we refrain from expressing any final opinion and leave it in the first place to the entire discretion of the authority concerned to look into this aspect and take a holistic view.”
While dealing with petitions challenging a March 20, 2025 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Bench exercised its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to revive the cases of 21 land owners from Bhiwani district of Haryana who were rendered remediless due to a strange combination of legal provisions and orders passed by courts.
On behalf of the petitioners, advocates K S Minhas and Gagneshwar Walia said the landowners can’t be left high and dry due to lacunae in the law.
The top court noted that under the 1956 Act, an aggrieved landowner challenging the quantum of compensation was compelled to seek arbitration before government-notified administrative officers, such as District Collectors or Commissioners, rather than independent judicial authorities.
Requesting Attorney General R Venkataramani to look into the matter, the Bench directed its Registry to send a copy of this order to the office of the Attorney General and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and listed the matter for further hearing on April 21, 2026.
While appreciating the legislative wisdom behind the time-bound and expeditious manner of land acquisition under the 1956 Act development of National Highways, the Bench said, “Though such a legislative policy is laudable, prima facie, it seems that this object can be kept intact while ensuring the land owners that they will be entitled to assessment of compensation for the acquired land in the same manner as is determined for the land owners whose lands are acquired under the Old Act or under the New Act, even when such acquisition is also for infrastructural development.”
