<p>The Supreme Court on Friday held that a court of district judge and not the district magistrate would decide any dispute related to apportionment of compensation to landowners for the land acquired for laying national highways.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala said 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, it pointed out. </p>.<p>The court allowed an appeal filed by Vinod Kumar and others against the Allahabad High Court's division bench order, which had upheld the single judge's decision that the district magistrate is competent to look into the legality and validity of the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Authority Act, 1956.</p>.<p>The matter concerned apportionment of compensation amount among the appellants to the parcel of land acquired for four laning of National Highway no 29 in Mau district.</p>.<p>Referring to the provisions of the 1956 Act, the bench said, "We fail to understand on what basis the High Court has observed that the District Magistrate is competent to examine the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and decide the dispute as to the apportionment of the amount."</p>.<p>The bench further said the High Court seems to have completely misread the provisions of the Act 1956 and it fell into error as it failed to apply the well settled principle of law that for construing a legal provision, the first and foremost rule of construction is the literal construction. <br /> </p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Friday held that a court of district judge and not the district magistrate would decide any dispute related to apportionment of compensation to landowners for the land acquired for laying national highways.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices B R Gavai and J B Pardiwala said 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, it pointed out. </p>.<p>The court allowed an appeal filed by Vinod Kumar and others against the Allahabad High Court's division bench order, which had upheld the single judge's decision that the district magistrate is competent to look into the legality and validity of the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Authority Act, 1956.</p>.<p>The matter concerned apportionment of compensation amount among the appellants to the parcel of land acquired for four laning of National Highway no 29 in Mau district.</p>.<p>Referring to the provisions of the 1956 Act, the bench said, "We fail to understand on what basis the High Court has observed that the District Magistrate is competent to examine the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and decide the dispute as to the apportionment of the amount."</p>.<p>The bench further said the High Court seems to have completely misread the provisions of the Act 1956 and it fell into error as it failed to apply the well settled principle of law that for construing a legal provision, the first and foremost rule of construction is the literal construction. <br /> </p>
