Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Friday declared that any dispute with regard to apportionment of compensation awarded to landowners in lieu of land acquired under the National Highways Authority Act, 1956 would be referred to the court of district judge and not the district magistrate.

"When it comes to resolving the dispute relating to apportionment of the amount determined towards compensation, it is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which can do so. Principal Civil Court means the Court of the District Judge," a bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala said.

The court allowed an appeal filed by Vinod Kumar and others against the Allahabad High Court's division bench order of February 28, 2020, which rejected a plea against the single judge's decision that the district magistrate is competent to look into the legality and validity of the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Authority Act, 1956.

The dispute related to apportionment of compensation amount among the appellants to the parcel of land in Mau district in Uttar Pradesh acquired for four laning of National Highway no 29.

Having gone through the provisions of the 1956 Act, the bench said, "We fail to understand on what basis the High Court in its impugned order has observed that the District Magistrate is competent to examine the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and decide the dispute as to the apportionment of the amount."

The court further pointed out the dispute being of the nature triable by the Civil Court that the law steps in to provide for that to be referred to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The dispute regarding apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, would then have to be decided by that Court, it added.

The bench also explained that there is a fine distinction between determining the amount to be paid towards compensation and the apportionment of the amount. The legislature has thought fit to confer powers upon the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction to determine the dispute arising as to the apportionment of the amount, it pointed out.   

In the case on hand, the bench noted, "the High Court seems to have completely misread the provisions of the Act 1956 and it fell into error as it failed to apply the well settled principle of law that for construing a legal provision, the first and foremost rule of construction is the literal construction".  

"All that the Court has to see at the very outset is what does the provision state. If the provision is unambiguous and from the provision the legislative intent is clear, the Court need not call into aid the other rules of construction of statute. The other rules of construction are called into aid only when the legislative intent is not clear," the bench said.

Case Title: Vinod Kumar & Others v District Magistrate Mau & Others