The adjudication of disputes under Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act is deemed a decree, allowing appeals under Section 96 of the CPC, despite the Act not explicitly providing for such appeals.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. This appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) by the appellant/1st respondent in LAOP No.01 of 2014 (in short ‘LAOP’) on the file of the Principal District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole (in short ‘learned Court’) against the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2024, passed on a reference under Section 3-H(4) of the NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT , 1956 (in short ‘the Act’).

I. Facts :

2. Briefly stated the facts for the purposes of the present issue, are that the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (in short ‘NHAI’), Nellore sent requisition for acquisition of an extent of Acs.22.29-1/2 cents patta land and Ac.00.90 cents of Government land, situated in Annavarappadu Village of Ongole Mandal for formation of bypass road on the eastern side of Ongole Town and accordingly notification under Section 3-A(1) of the Act was published. Publication under Section 3-D(1) of the Act was made in Gazette of India No.1392, dated 20.07.2011, and as per the enjoyment particulars furnished by the Tahsildar, Ongole, the name of Bollineni Srihari Rao, the present appellant, was shown as landowner for an extent of Ac.00.79 cents in Sy.No.152/3B of Annavarappadu Village, covered under the acquisition. Subsequently, a public notice under Section 3-G(3) of the Act was issued on 02.12.2011 inviting the landowners and interested persons to file their claims for the lands before the competent authority to establish their claim of title over the lands under acquisition. Later, the award enquiry was conducted on 09.01.2012. One Bollineni Venkataramaiah (the present 2nd respondent, deceased) filed representation, submitting that the appellant had no landed property in Sy.No.152/3B of the concerned village and the name of the appellant was wrongly published as landowner in the land acquisition notification. He also stated that his father Bollineni Narayya purchased an extent of Acs.02.12 cents of land from Bollineni Venkata Naraiah and others by registered document dated 17.04.1976 and after the death of his father, he became the landowner and obtained pattadar passbook for that land under Khata No.71 from the revenue authorities. He also claimed that the appellant managed to enter appellant’s name in the Revenue Records by misrepresentation of facts and requested not to pay the compensation to the appellant. The dispute was also said to be pending before the Joint Collector, Ongole and Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole. The appellant herein (the 1st respondent) in LAOP, is said to have not attended the award enquiry and also not to have produced any documentary evidence.

3. The appellant, previously filed WP No.26329 of 2012 questioning the action of the Competent Authority and Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), National Highway-5, Ongole, in not paying the compensation for the land admeasuring Ac.00.79 cents acquired. The said writ petition was disposed of on 04.02.2013, directing the Competent Authority to refer the matter under Section 3-H(4) of the Act to the Civil Court for deciding the dispute between the respondents 1 and 2 in LAOP, as to who was entitled to receive the compensation.

4. The appellant herein was the 1st respondent in LAOP. The 2nd respondent herein was the 2nd respondent in LAOP. He died. Respondent Nos.9 to 11 in LAOP, were substituted in