Can Reference Court Decide Title Disputes? Gauhati High Court Says Yes Under National Highways Act

Gauhati High Court Clarifies Jurisdiction of Reference Court in NH Act Compensation Disputes

In a significant ruling under the National Highways Act, 1956, the Gauhati High Court has held that the Reference Court under Section 3H(4) possesses the jurisdiction to incidentally decide questions of title when determining entitlement to compensation or its apportionment. Justice Devashis Baruah, presiding over a single bench, delivered this observation while disposing of a writ petition arising from the acquisition of land for the widening of NH-306 in Cachar district, Assam.

The Dispute: Whose Land, Whose Compensation?

The case involved competing claims over Dag No.15 of 2nd RS Patta No.7, which was acquired under a Section 3D notification issued on 21 July 2023 for the four-laning of NH-306. The notification listed the private respondents, Abdul Matlib Laskar and Abdul Sukkur Laskar, along with their predecessors, as the interested parties. The petitioners—Faizur Rahman Laskar and his co-claimants—were not named. Despite this, the petitioners asserted that they held rights over the land and had even filed a civil suit claiming title. They challenged the Speaking Order dated 7 January 2025, passed by the Additional District Commissioner, Cachar, which directed that 50% of the zirat compensation be paid to the private respondents (who were in possession and had been dispossessed) and the remaining 50% be deposited before the District and Sessions Judge, Silchar.

The petitioners argued that since their suit was pending, no payment should be made to the private respondents. They also claimed that although their land was not acquired by the notification, physical possession had been taken from them.

Arguments: Self-Contained Code vs. Parallel Proceedings

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate A.R. Bhuyan, contended that the Competent Authority ought to have stayed the disbursement pending adjudication of title in the civil suit. The private respondents, through Senior Advocate P.K. Roychoudhury, countered that the National Highways Act provides a complete mechanism for resolving such disputes, including the reference procedure under Section 3H(4).

The State and NHIDCL, represented by Mrs. R. Borah and Mr. R. Borpujari, supported the impugned order as being in conformity with the statutory scheme.

Legal Analysis: The Self-Contained Code and Incidental Title Determination

Justice Baruah emphasised that the National Highways Act is a “self contained code to decide various aspect relating to the acquisition of lands.” He delineated the complementary roles of Sections 3G and 3H: while Section 3G deals with adequacy of compensation, Section 3H governs its deposit and disbursement, including disputes over entitlement.

Citing the recent Supreme Court judgment in K. Venkataswamy and Others vs. Gowramma and Another (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1487), the High Court extracted the key principle that the Reference Court's jurisdiction under Section 3H(4) is “wide enough to incidentally determine questions of title insofar as such determination is necessary for deciding the person entitled to the compensation arising out of the acquisition.” This clarified that a separate civil suit is unnecessary, as the Reference Court can resolve both entitlement and underlying title issues.

Key Observations

The Court made several pivotal observations:

“In the opinion of this Court that the provisions of the Act of 1956 is a self contained code to decide various aspect relating to the acquisition of lands. If disputes arise as regards the inadequacy of compensation, Section 3G of the Act of 1956 provides adequate remedies. If there is any dispute as regards the person who is entitled or for that matter how much a person is entitled to in respect to determined compensation, Section 3H of the Act of 1956 provides adequate remedies.”

On the impugned order, the Court noted:

“It is the opinion of this Court that the reasons so assigned in the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 appears to be in accordance with the Scheme of the Act of 1956.”

However, to safeguard the interests of the petitioners, the Court imposed a condition: the release of 50% zirat compensation to the private respondents would require an undertaking and an indemnity bond to ensure recovery if the reference proceedings go against them.

The Verdict: Directions for Reference and Conditional Disbursement

Disposing of the writ petition, the High Court issued the following directions:

  1. The Competent Authority (Additional District Commissioner, Cachar) must forthwith refer the dispute to the Court of the District Judge, Silchar, for adjudication under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act.

  2. The 50% zirat compensation may be released to the private respondents only upon their furnishing an undertaking and an indemnity bond that they will refund the amount if the reference decision is adverse to them.

  3. The remaining 50% shall be deposited with the District Judge, Silchar, and will be disbursed as per the outcome of the reference.

The interim order restraining payment was vacated, and no costs were imposed.

Implications

This judgment reinforces the principle that the National Highways Act provides a comprehensive mechanism for resolving all disputes emerging from land acquisition, including questions of title. By directing a mandatory reference to the civil court, the High Court has streamlined the process, preventing multiplicity of litigation. The condition of an indemnity bond strikes a pragmatic balance—ensuring that the persons actually in possession and recorded in the award receive immediate relief without prejudicing the claims of others.

For legal practitioners and land owners involved in NH Act acquisitions, this decision makes it clear: the Reference Court is the appropriate forum to determine both entitlement and title, and separate civil suits are neither necessary nor encouraged.