Challenge to Land Acquisition and Compensation Meritless Due to Gross Delay and Decided Law

The 28 petitioners, owners of various lands in Taluka Vyara, Uchchhal, and Songadh, challenged land acquisition proceedings conducted under the National Highways Act, 1956.

Original awards under Section 3G were declared in 2011 and 2012

The petitioners claimed the compensation was unsatisfactory and alleged they had moved applications for arbitration under Section 3G(5), though no dates or evidence of such applications were provided

They further challenged an amended award dated 09.04.2024, which had been issued to grant benefits pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Tarsem Singh, and sought to strike down Section 3(j) of the Act as unconstitutional

1. Whether Section 3(j) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India

2. Whether the land acquisition proceedings and awards from 2011-2012 can be quashed after a delay of approximately 14 years

3. Whether the amended award dated 09.04.2024 is liable to be set aside on the ground of insufficient compensation

The Court applied the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh and Others (2019) 9 SCC 304, which already addressed the constitutionality of Section 3J of the National Highways Act and mandated the payment of solatium and interest

The Court also relied on the principle of laches and the "misconceived" nature of seeking to reopen settled compensation awards after over a decade without substantial legal grounds

The Court found the petition to be "wholly misconceived" and an abuse of process. Regarding the constitutional challenge to Section 3J, the Court noted that the issue no longer survives as it was definitively resolved by the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh

The Court highlighted several procedural and substantive gaps in the petitioners' case: they failed to disclose when they received the original compensation, provided no proof of arbitration applications, and sought to challenge 2011-12 awards approximately 14 years later

The Court reasoned that the challenge to the 2009 notification and subsequent awards, after having already received compensation, was legally untenable

Furthermore, the prayer to set aside the 09.04.2024 amended award—which was actually intended to provide additional benefits—was dismissed for lacking any background or justification

Finding the litigation to be "unscrupulous" and a waste of judicial time, the Court imposed a total cost of Rs. 28,000/- (Rs. 1,000/- per petitioner), to be deposited with the Registrar General and transmitted to the High Court Legal Service Authority

The challenge to the acquisition proceedings was barred by time and lack of merit