"9. It is true that the 1956 Act is a special statute which has clothed the Central Government with the power to acquire any land for a public purpose, which is required for building, maintenance, management or operation of a National Highway or part thereof. But many provisions of the 1956 Act are akin to the provisions of the 1894 Act. A perusal of Sections 3A, 3C and 3D of the 1956 Act would show that they are similar to Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively in their contents and intendment. Even Section 3H (3) and (4) of the 1956 Act are somewhat similar to Sections 18 and 30 respectively of the 1894 Act. Likewise, further provisions like Sections 3H and 3G of the 1956 Act are equivalent to Sections 16 and 11 of the 1894 Act. Then it follows that the Competent Authority under the 1956 Act designated by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would not be clothed with the power to adjudicate the claim of apportionment made by the parties in respect of the land for which notifications for acquisition have been issued under the 1956 Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 3H of the 1956 Act, the Competent Authority may determine the persons who would be entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them where several persons make claim in respect of the amount deposited under sub-section (1) of Section 3H of the 1956 Act. This Section does not talk about any dispute between several claims, which in fact, has been specifically dealt with in subsection (4) of Section 3H of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 3H of the 1956 Act opens with the words 'If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable', then the Competent
