1 - Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Sao Aged About 52 Years R/o Station v. 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways Transport
Case Details
1 / 5 2025:CGHC:7434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 834 of 2025 1 - Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Sao Aged About 52 Years R/o Station Maroda, Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) 2 - Sanjeet Kumar S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Sao, Aged About 37 Years R/o Hari Nagar Katul Board Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways Transport Bhawan 1 Parliament Street New Delhi – 110001 2 - National Highway Authority Of India, G 5 & 6, Sector – 10, Dwarka, New Delhi – 1100075 3 - The Collector, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) 4 - The Sub Divisional Officer And Land Acquisition Officer, Durg, District - Durg (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
"33. We are of the view that 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. 34. Our final conclusion is as under 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 authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. The competent authority possesses certain powers of the Civil Court, but in the event of a dispute of the above nature, the 1 2023SCC OnLine SC 787 5 / 5 summary power, vesting in the competent authority of rendering an opinion in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 3H, will not serve the purpose. The 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 of original jurisdiction. The dispute regarding apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, would then have to be decided by that Court 9. In view of the above and the dispute of the petitioner that the amount of compensation has been paid to the respondent No.5, the petitioner is at liberty to approach before the appropriate authority under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition is
Arguments
5 - Saheb Rao Dhaise S/o Shri Mukund Kumar Dhaise Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 64 Newai Bhata Bhilai Post Newai Bhata Bhilai Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents 2 / 5 For Petitioner For Respondents/ UOI For Respondent No.2 For Respondents/State : Ms. Nupoor Sonkar, Panel Lawyer : Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate : Ms. Annapurna Tiwari, Central Govt. Counsel : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 12/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities for payment of compensation with respect to the land of the petitioners which has been used for construction of National Highway. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the year 2014, the petitioner No. 1 purchased a piece of land bearing Khasra Nos. 754/3 and 755/2 which was subsequently mutated into Khasra Nos.754/61 and 755/37 and after settlement, the land was renumbered as Khasra No. 329, admeasuring area of 2610 sq. ft., from respondent No. 5/Saheb Rao Dhaise, located at Village Borigarkha (now Kargadih). Similarly, the petitioner No. 2 purchased a piece of land bearing Khasra Nos. 754/3 and 755/2 which was mutated into Khasra Nos. 754/63 and 755/39 and after settlement, the land was renumbered as Khasra No. 331, admeasuring area of 2400 sq. ft., from the same person which is also located in the same village. He further submits that the NHAI has utilized the land of the petitioners for construction of a road without acquiring the same and no payment of compensation has been made to the petitioner towards the said land till date. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that earlier the land of the petitioners was owned by respondent No.5 3 / 5 and the said land has been acquired and the award against the said land has been passed in favour of respondent No.5, hence the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable at this stage. The petitioners have to approach before the appropriate authority for apportionment of the compensation under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act of 1956”). 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and pleadings made by the petitioner. 5. From perusal of Annexure P/3 which is a notification under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 reflecting the name of respondent No.5 at serial No.11 of the said notification, it appears that the name of respondent No.5 has been included and the award must have been passed in favour of him who was the earlier owner of the land in question. 6. Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 reads as under:- “3H. Deposit and payment of amount- (4) 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, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated." 7. A careful perusal of Section 3H(4) of the NH Act shows that any dispute arising 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, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the 4 / 5 decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. As such, once there is a dispute as to whom the amount of compensation or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority has no option except to refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated, as the dispute would be taken cognizance of by the civil Court and it has to be decided in accordance with law. 8. Section 3H(4) of the NH Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court very recently in the matter of Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate, Mau1 and it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that 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, and Principal Civil Court means the Court of the District Judge. Their Lordships observed as under: -
Decision
disposed of. $. Bhilwar Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE