IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & MANGESH S.PATIL, JJ.
Arun S/o Trimbakrao Lokare - PETITIONER
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,Through the Secretary, Department of Urban Development & Ors. - RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION NO.1949 of 2017
Decided On : 29-06-2017
It is settled principle of interpretation of statute that the provisions of any statute are to be so interpreted as to give effect to each of them to the extent possible without giving rise to any conflict or overlapping. This principle of harmonious construction needs to be applied in the matter before hand vis-a-vis sub - Section (3) of Section 3-H, while interpreting sub - Section (3). Such application would lead us to interpret these provisions in harmonious manner putting neither of them otiose. A careful reading of these provisions would reveal that when several persons are entitled to claim compensation, the competent authority has power and jurisdiction to record an opinion and determine the persons who are entitled to receive share/s and only enables him to apportion the amount of compensation amongst them according to the share they are entitled to. As against this, sub - Section (4) contemplates a situation where the dispute is raised as to the entitlement of the compensation by several persons and the jurisdiction to decide such dispute is conferred upon the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. In other words, whenever there is dispute raised by any person as to the right to receive either the whole or portion of the compensation, the competent authority is obliged to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
In view of such legal position, when sub - Section (4) of Section 3-H specifically requires the dispute as to entitlement to receive compensation determined under Section 3-G of the Act to be referred to and decided by the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, it by implication necessarily excludes jurisdiction of the competent authority which is entitled to merely decide the point of apportionment of the compensation amongst several persons under sub - Section (3) of Section 3-H. Such interpretation, strikes a balance between sub - Section (3) and sub - Section (4) of Section 3-H of the Act and make them operative in separate spheres. The submission of the Advocate for the petitioner, on these lines therefore deserves to the accepted.
Under the circumstances the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 5.1.2017 passed by respondent No. 3 is quashed and set aside and he is directed to refer the matter to the Principal Court of original jurisdiction, as contemplated under Section 3-H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 within two weeks of receiving a copy of this order.
MANGESH S. PATIL,J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of parties.
2. Interpretation of the provisions of Section 3-H of the National Highways Act, 1956 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act), and particularly interpretation and distinction between Sub Section( 3) and (4) of Section 3-H apparently is in dispute in this writ petition, seeking a certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner's averments are to the effect that his father purchased agricultural land admeasuring 5 Acres 14 Are from land survey nos. 11/1 and 10/01 of village Manjarsumba, District Beed under the sale-deed dated 17.07.1979. In pursuance of the sale deed, Revenue record was also mutated vide Mutation Entry No.332 dated 28.12.1980 in the name of his father. It was, in fact, an undivided ¼th share of the vendee Shri. Gopal Agwan in those lands. Later on, the vendor sold a portion of 6 Acres 15 Are from the land survey No.10/1 to respondent No.4.
4. According to the petitioner, the portion admeasuring 16 Are from survey No.10/1 was acquired by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 under the Act. Being one of the co-owners, the petitioner applied to the respondent No.3 for a share in the compensation by moving an application dated 30.01.2016. The latter called upon the respondent No.4 to appear and file his say to that application and ultimately the petitioner’s claim was rejected by the order dated 05.01.2017, which is impugned in the present petition.
5. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally and was reserved for order.
6. At the outset, it is necessary to mention that there is apparently no dispute about any of the facts averred in the petition. The whole controversy therefore, revolves around the interpretation and distinction between Sub-Section (3) and (4) of Section 3-H of the Act. The relevant provisions are reproduced hereinafter for ready reference :
“ 3-H. Deposit and payment of amount.-
(1) The amount determined under section 3-G shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority before taking possession of the land.
(2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto.
(3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub- section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them.
(4) 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, 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.
(5) Where the amount determined under section 3-G by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the arbitrator may award interest at nine per cent per annum on such excess amount from the date of taking possession under section 3-D till the date of the actual deposit thereof.
(6) Where the amount determined by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, awarded under sub-section (5) shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority and the provisions of sub-section (2) to (4) shall apply to such deposit. "
7. The National Highways Act, 1956 is an Act to provide for the declaration of certain highways to be national highways and for matters connected therewith. By Section 2, certain highways can be declared as national highways. By Section 3, the term
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.