SC nudges Centre to amend Highways Act, wants judicial officers deciding land compensation disputes, not bureaucrats

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday urged the Centre to consider amending the National Highways Act to ensure that disputes over compensation for acquired land are decided by judicially trained adjudicators rather than government officers.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said it was prima facie unacceptable for compensation disputes under the Act to be decided by government-appointed bureaucrats.

Also read: Modern-day generation is restless, wants quick solution to problems: SC in Sonam Raghuvanshi case


The bench noted that compensation disputes under all other land acquisition laws are adjudicated by judicially trained authorities. It said the National Highways Act was the only law under which that safeguard had been removed and the responsibility had been vested entirely in bureaucrats.

"The procedure under the principal land acquisition law ensures that the determination of compensation, which is purely a judicial exercise, is undertaken by a judicially trained mind. This is the only enactment where an exception has been carved out and bureaucrats have been vested with this role. Prima facie, that is not acceptable to us," the bench remarked.

It also noted that land adjoining national highways typically commands higher market values. Speaking for the bench, the CJI said there had been instances where farmers were denied solatium and interest under the National Highways Act until the Supreme Court intervened.

Also read: Supreme Court has more than 96,000 pending cases; 26 over 30 years old: Arjun Meghwal

Appearing for the Centre, attorney general R Venkataramani told the bench that the government was seriously considering amendments to the Act and that the proposed changes would address the issues raised.

The bench said it would await the government's decision.

"We are only proposing the amendment. If the government is examining the issue, we would welcome that. Why should we decide the issue, prima facie or finally, if there is a possibility of an appropriate legislative process? We can wait for some time," the bench remarked.