Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a land acquisition proceeding under the National Highways Act, 1956 for widening National Highway No. 29 in District Mau, Uttar Pradesh. The Central Government issued a notification under Section 3A(1) on 23.01.2015 proposing to acquire land including Gat Nos. 158, 160, and 161 in village Ahirani Bujurg. A declaration under Section 3D was issued on 21.01.2016, vesting the land in the Central Government. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award on 28.11.2016 under Section 3G determining compensation at Rs.63,16,90,117 based on the stamp rate of Rs.4,50,00,000 per hectare. The landowners (appellants) accepted the compensation. However, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) objected to the high compensation and filed an application before the District Magistrate under Section 3G(5) of the Act, seeking review of the award. The District Magistrate, by order dated 27.12.2019, set aside the SLAO's award and remanded the matter for fresh determination, holding that the SLAO had erred in applying the stamp rate without considering the actual market value. The landowners challenged this order before the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed their writ petition on 28.02.2020, holding that the District Magistrate was competent to examine the legality and validity of the SLAO's order under Section 3G(5). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the power under Section 3G(5) is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and does not confer appellate or review powers on the District Magistrate. The Court clarified that the District Magistrate cannot re-determine compensation or substitute his own view on the quantum. The Court set aside the District Magistrate's order and the High Court's judgment, restoring the SLAO's award.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3G(5) - Power of District Magistrate - The District Magistrate under Section 3G(5) has only the power to correct errors apparent on the face of the record, akin to rectification of mistakes, and cannot review or re-determine the compensation awarded by the SLAO. The High Court erred in holding that the District Magistrate could examine the legality and validity of the SLAO's award. (Paras 10-15) B) Land Acquisition - National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3G(1) and 3G(5) - Compensation Determination - The SLAO determines compensation under Section 3G(1) based on the principles in Section 3G(7). The District Magistrate's role under Section 3G(5) is limited to correcting errors apparent on record, not to substitute his own view on the quantum of compensation. (Paras 12-14) C) Land Acquisition - National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3G(5) - Error Apparent on Record - The expression 'error apparent on the face of the record' means an error that is self-evident and does not require elaborate examination of evidence. The District Magistrate cannot re-appreciate evidence or re-determine compensation under the guise of correcting an error. (Para 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Magistrate, under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, has the power to review or re-determine the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) under Section 3G(1) of the Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District Magistrate dated 27.12.2019 and the judgment of the High Court dated 28.02.2020, and restored the award of the SLAO dated 28.11.2016.
Law Points
- Section 3G(5) of National Highways Act
- 1956 confers limited power to correct errors apparent on record
- not to review or re-determine compensation
- District Magistrate cannot sit in appeal over SLAO award
- Power under Section 3G(5) is akin to rectification of mistakes
- not a review or appeal
