National Highways Authority Act - Dispute On Apportionment Of Compensation Can Only Be Determined By 'Principal Civil Court Of Original Jurisdiction' : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction can determine the dispute arising as to the apportionment of the amount of compensation under National Highways Authority Act, 1956.

There is a fine distinction between determining the amount to be paid towards compensation and the apportionment of the amount, the bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala said.

In this case, the competent authority i.e. the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 3G of the Act and   determined the compensation to be paid to the landowners for the acquired land. A dispute regarding apportionment of the compensation was raised before the competent authority. The competent authority i.e. SLAO, Mau proceeded to determine the shares of the various parties in the land in question. District Magistrate, Mau in purported exercise of power under Section 3(G)(5) set aside this order. Dismissing the writ petition filed by land owners, the Allahabad High Court held that District Magistrate was competent to examine the order passed by the SLAO.

Before the Apex Court, it was contended by the appellants that the District Magistrate, Mau who is an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government does not have any jurisdiction to decide the apportionment of the compensation and he is empowered only to decide the quantum of compensation under Section 3G(5) of the Act 1956 as an arbitrator. The other side contended that the dispute, in substance, is not one of apportionment but is in respect of the share in the subject land. 

The court noted the sub­clause (4) of Section 3H is plain and simple. It provides that if any disputes arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof, the competent authority is obliged to refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.

The court explained the reason why the legislature thought fit to confer such power to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction:

"The question of apportionment of compensation is not free from difficulties. In apportioning the compensation, the Court has to give to each claimant the value of the interest which he has lost by compulsory acquisition. So stated, the proposition may appear simple, but in its practical application 21 numerous complicated problems arise in apportioning the compensation awarded. The difficulty experienced is due to the nature of a variety of interests, rights and claims to land which have to be valued in terms of money. The compensation awarded for compulsory acquisition is the value of all the interests which are extinguished and that compensation has to be distributed equitably amongst persons having interest therein and the Court must proceed to apportion the compensation so that the aggregate value of all interests is equal to the amount of compensation awarded. But in the valuation of competing interests, which from its very nature is dependent upon indefinite factors and uncertain data, considerable difficulty is encountered. Indisputably, in apportioning compensation the Court cannot proceed upon hypothetical considerations but must proceed as far as possible to make an accurate determination of the value of the respective interests which are lost. The Court must, in each case, having regard to the circumstances and the possibility of a precise determination of the value having regard to the 22 materials available, adopt that method of valuation which equitably distributes the compensation between the persons entitled thereto."

apportionment under sub­clause (4) of Section 3H of the Act 1956 is not a revaluation but a distribution of the value already fixed among the several persons interested in the land acquired in accordance with the nature and quantum of the respective interests. In ascertainment of those interests, the determination of their relative importance and the manner in which they can be said to have contributed to the total value fixed are questions to be decided in the light of the circumstances of each case and the relevant provisions of law governing the rights of the parties. The actual rule for apportionment has to be formulated in each case so as to ensure a just and equitable distribution of the total value or compensation among the persons interested in the land.

While seting aside the High Court judgment, the bench concluded as follows:

­ If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, then, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. The competent authority possesses certain powers of the Civil Court, but in the event of a dispute of the above nature, the summary power, vesting in the competent authority of 31 rendering an opinion in terms of sub­section (3) of Section 3H, will not serve the purpose. 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.

Case details

Vinod Kumar vs District Magistrate Mau | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 511 | 2023 INSC 606

Headnotes

National Highways Authority Act, 1956 ; Section 3H - ­ 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 -If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, then, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. The competent authority possesses certain powers of the Civil Court, but in the event of a dispute of the above nature, the summary power, vesting in the competent authority of rendering an opinion in terms of sub­section (3) of Section 3H, will not serve the purpose. 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. (Para 33-34)

Interpretation of Statutes - 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 other rules of interpretation, for example, the mischief rule/ purposive construction, etc. can only be resorted to when the plain words of a statute are ambiguous or lead to no intelligible results or if read literally would nullify the very object of the statute. Where the words of a statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be had to the principles of interpretation other than the literal rule. The language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent. The legislature is presumed to have made no mistakes. The presumption is that it intended to say what it has said. Assuming there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the Court cannot correct or make up the deficiency. (Para 24,25)

National Highways Authority Act, 1956 ; Section 3H - Apportionment under sub­clause (4) of Section 3H of the Act 1956 is not a revaluation but a distribution of the value already fixed among the several persons interested in the land acquired in accordance with the nature and quantum of the respective interests. In ascertainment of those interests, the determination of their relative importance and the manner in which they can be said to have contributed to the total value fixed are questions to be decided in the light of the circumstances of each case and the relevant provisions of law governing the rights of the parties. The actual rule for apportionment has to be formulated in each case so as to ensure a just and equitable distribution of the total value or compensation among the persons interested in the land. (Para 28)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment