2026 Supreme(SC) 881

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
K. Venkataswamy & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Gowramma & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4567 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 3295 of 2024)
Decided On : 17-04-2026

The Reference Court possesses incidental jurisdiction under the relevant statutory framework to adjudicate title disputes to determine rightful compensation entitlement. Furthermore, an appellate court cannot set aside its own final remand order, and parties are precluded from challenging the jurisdiction of a forum after accepting the benefit of such remand.

Headnote:(A) National Highways Act, 1956 - Section 3H(4) - Jurisdiction of the Reference Court - Whether the Reference Court can determine title disputes - The expression “person to whom the amount is payable” necessitates an adjudication of the underlying claim of title to ensure just distribution of funds - Inquiry into title is an incidental and integral part of the jurisdiction conferred to determine the rightful claimant. (Paras 22.5, 22.6, 22.7)

(B) Appellate Procedure - Remand Order - Finality of initial orders - Where a remand order is passed and allowed to attain finality, parties cannot challenge the jurisdiction of the forum to which the matter was remitted; such directions are binding upon the parties and the court. (Paras 22, 24)

Facts of the case:
The matter involved a dispute over compensation for acquired land. The authority responsible for the acquisition withheld payment due to rival title claims. A referral was made to the judicial forum to resolve the dispute regarding who was entitled to receive the compensation. In a previous round of litigation, an appellate court had remanded the matter to the primary court to specifically determine the issue of title based on additional evidence. Upon following the remand directions, the primary court reaffirmed the title in favour of the claimants. However, in the subsequent appeal, the appellate court held that the primary court lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate title questions.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court erred by overlooking its own earlier remand order, which had limited the scope of proceedings. The statute provides for the resolution of disputes concerning the entitlement to compensation, which necessitates the incidental adjudication of title. Once an order of remand has attained finality, neither the parties nor the courts can seek to re-open the jurisdictional questions settled by that order.

Issues: 1. Whether the reference court possesses the jurisdiction under the statute to adjudicate upon the title of individuals seeking compensation; 2. Whether an appellate court can challenge its own previously passed, final remand order regarding the scope of the original reference.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority to determine the eligibility of persons entitled to compensation implies the necessary power to investigate title, as the latter is a condition precedent to the former. Accepting any other interpretation would render the statutory provision ineffective. Moreover, the principle of finality dictates that a party cannot benefit from a remand order and later challenge the jurisdiction of the forum designated to carry out that specific exercise.

Result: Appeal allowed; restored to the file of the appellate court for disposal on merits.