Land Acquisition Apportionment Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order, Refers Case to Principal Civil Court
In a significant ruling on the apportionment of compensation in land acquisition cases, the Supreme Court has quashed the order of the District Magistrate, Mau, and referred the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and J.B. Pardiwala, emphasized the role of the Principal Civil Court in resolving such disputes and highlighted the distinction between Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The court’s decision clarified that the apportionment under sub-clause (4) of Section 3H of the Land Acquisition Act, 1956, is not a revaluation but a fair distribution of the already fixed value among the interested parties. The judges emphasized that the determination of interests, their relative importance, and their contribution to the total value should be decided on a case-by-case basis, ensuring a just and equitable distribution of compensation.
Supreme Court bench stated, “The only general principle one could state is that apportionment… is not a revaluation but a distribution of the value already fixed among the several persons interested in the land acquired… The actual rule for apportionment has to be formulated in each case so as to ensure a just and equitable distribution of the total value or compensation among the persons interested in the land.”
The court also clarified that the District Magistrate lacked the power and jurisdiction to decide the apportionment of the amount. Instead, the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, represented by the District Judge, is the competent authority to resolve such disputes.
The judgment further referred to the decision in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar, where the court analyzed and interpreted Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It highlighted that the powers under these sections are distinct and may be invoked in different contingencies, with Section 30 covering disputes related to apportionment and the persons entitled to compensation.
With its ruling, the Supreme Court set aside the District Magistrate’s order and directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court for further proceedings.
This judgment by the apex court ensures a fair and impartial process for the apportionment of compensation in land acquisition cases, aiming to protect the rights and interests of all parties involved.
Date of Decision: July 07, 2023
VINOD KUMAR & ORS. vs DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MAU & ORS.
