VINOD KUMAR & ORS. versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MAU & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 387 · Decided: 07-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
387
387
VINOD KUMAR & ORS.
v.
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MAU & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5107 of 2022)
JULY 07, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
National Highways Authority Act, 1956: s. 3H – Deposit and
payment of amount – Compulsory acquisition – Apportionment of
compensation – Land of the appellants acquired for public purpose
– Determination of the compensation payable to landowners by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer-SLAO – Dispute by respondents
regarding the apportionment of the compensation between
themselves and the appellants – Competent authority, SLAO
determined the shares of parties in the subject land and the
appellants were satisfied with the same – However, the respondents
challenged the same before the District Magistrate by invoking s.3G
(5) – District Magistrate granted higher shares in favour of the
respondents – Writ application by the appellants – Dismissed by
High Court – Correctness of – Held : 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 – 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 – Thus, the order passed
by the District Magistrate is quashed and set aside – SLAO to refer
the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in
accordance with sub-clause (4) of s. 3H of the Act.
Interpretation of Statutes – Rule of interpretation – Literal
rule – Explained.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the High Court seems to
have completely misread the provisions of the National Highways
Authority Act, 1956. It fell into error as it failed to apply the well
settled principle of law that for construing a legal provision, the
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 387 : 2023 INSC 606
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
388
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
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. [Para 24][402-B-C]
1.2. The first and foremost principle of interpretation of a
statute in every system of interpretation is the literal rule of
interpretation. The other rules of interpretation, 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 25][402-C-F]
1.3. 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. There
is a reason, why the legislature has thought fit to confer such
power to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within
the limits of whose jurisdiction is land is situated. [Para 26][402-
F-G]
1.4. 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 numerous
complicated problems arise in apportioning the compensation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
389
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 acqu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.