2023 Supreme(SC) 617

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, J.B. PARDIWALA, JJ.
Vinod Kumar and Others – Appellants
Versus
District Magistrate Mau and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5107 of 2022
Decided On : 07-07-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Acquisition of land – If any dispute arises as to apportionment of amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom same or any part thereof is payable, then, competent authority shall refer dispute to decision of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within limits of whose jurisdiction land is situated.
(2) Interpretation of Statute – Legislature is presumed to have made no mistakes – Presumption is that it intended to say what it has said – Court cannot correct or make up deficiency in words used by Legislature.

Headnote:

(A) National Highways Authority Act, 1956 – Section 3G(5) – Acquisition of land – Apportionment of amount of compensation – There is a fine distinction between determining amount to be paid towards compensation and apportionment of amount – Legislature has thought fit to confer powers upon Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction to determine dispute arising as to apportionment of amount – Question of apportionment of compensation is not free from difficulties – In apportioning compensation, Court has to give to each claimant value of interest which he has lost by compulsory acquisition – Compensation awarded for compulsory acquisition is value of all interests which are extinguished and that compensation has to be distributed equitably amongst persons having interest therein – In apportioning compensation Court cannot proceed upon hypothetical considerations but must proceed as far as possible to make an accurate determination of value of respective interests which are lost – Court must, in each case, having regard to circumstances and possibility of a precise determination of value having regard to materials available, adopt that method of valuation which equitably distributes compensation between persons entitled thereto – Actual rule for apportionment has to be formulated in each case so as to ensure a just and equitable distribution of total value or compensation among persons interested in land. (Paras 26, 27, 28 and 29)

(B) National Highways Authority Act, 1956 – Section 3G(5) – Acquisition of land – Apportionment of amount of compensation – If any dispute arises as to apportionment of amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom same or any part thereof is payable, then, competent authority shall refer dispute to decision of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within limits of whose jurisdiction land is situated – Competent authority possesses certain powers of Civil Court but in the event of a dispute of such nature, summary power vesting in competent authority of rendering an opinion in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 3H, will not serve the purpose – Dispute being of nature triable by Civil Court that law steps in to provide for that to be referred to decision of Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction – Dispute regarding apportionment of amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom same or any part thereof is payable, would then have to be decided by that Court – Order passed by District Magistrate quashed and set aside. (Paras 34 and 35)

(C) Interpretation of Statute – Literal rule of Interpretation – For construing a legal provision, first and foremost rule of construction is literal construction – All that Court has to see at the very outset is what does the provision state – If provision is unambiguous and from provision legislative intent is clear, Court need not call into aid other rules of construction[mischief rule/ purposive construction] of statute – Other rules of construction are called into aid only when legislative intent is not clear – Language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of legislative intent – Legislature is presumed to have made no mistakes – Presumption is that it intended to say what it has said – Assuming there is a defect or omission in words used by Legislature, Court cannot correct or make up deficiency. (Paras 24 and 25)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is at the instance of unsuccessful original writ petitioners and is directed against order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 28th February, 2020 in Writ-C No. 7310 of 2020 by which High Court rejected writ application filed by the appellants taking the view that District Magistrate is competent to look into the legality and validity of order passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 3G(5) of National Highways Authority Act, 1956.

Findings of Court:

In view of the dispute between the parties as regards apportionment of amount of compensation, Special Land Acquisition Officer shall now refer the dispute to Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in accordance with sub-clause (4) of Section 3H of the Act 1956.

Result : Appeal allowed.