Back
GOPINATH P.
Sathyanandan M. G, S/o Govindan – Appellant
Versus
Project Director – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the fact that the 3rd respondent (the competent authority for land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956) has determined that the petitioner, as well as respondents 5, 6 and 7 and late Mukundan, are entitled to share the amount of compensation awarded for acquisition of certain lands under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1956 Act’).
2. The facts relevant for the adjudication of the lis may be briefly noticed. The writ petitioner and respondents 5, 6 and 7 are siblings. Late Govindan had seven children, including the petitioner and respondents 5, 6 and 7. In terms of Ext.P1 Will executed by late Govindan, the right of administration of a school, which belonged absolutely to late Govindan, was given exclusively to the writ petitioner. There is a clause in Ext.P.1 Will that if the petitioner were to sell the school or part with the property, the amount received by the petitioner shall be shared between the petitioner and all his siblings, including respondents 5, 6 and 7. While the petitioner contends that the amount received as compensation for the compulsory acquisition
Point of law: while construing a legal provision, the first and foremost rule of construction is the rule of literal construction, and other rules of construction are called into aid only when the le....
Section 3-G(4) of Act stipulates that such notice shall state particulars of land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner b....
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that disputes regarding apportionment of compensation under the National Highways Act should be referred to the principal civil court of origin....
Section 3G of National Highways Act, 1956 provided for procedure for determination of amount payable as compensation.
The competent authority under the National Highways Act lacks jurisdiction to decide apportionment disputes, which must be referred to the Principal Civil Court.
The competent authority under the National Highways Act lacks jurisdiction to apportion compensation and must refer such disputes to the Principal Civil Court.
Point of Law : It is a settled principle of interpretation of statute that the provisions of any statute are to be interpreted to give effect to each of them to the extent possible without giving any....
In disputed land acquisition compensation apportionment, competent authority must refer to Principal Civil Court under National Highways Act Section 3H(4) and withhold payment; writ court cannot dire....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
