IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE, J.
Bhajan Saha and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal and Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 16776 of 2016
Decided On : 08-01-2019
National Highways Act - Dispute Reference - Section 3H(4)
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners sought a reference of a dispute regarding compensation payment for their land under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The dispute arose from the ownership of the land and the apportionment of the compensation amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petitioners had failed to prove their title to the property in a previous partition suit, and therefore, they did not have the right to seek reference of the matter under Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956.
Issues: The main issue was whether the writ petitioners were entitled to a reference of the dispute under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statutory right of reference under Section 3H(4) is independent of any suit for partition, but the petitioners' failure to prove their title in the previous suit precluded them from seeking the reference.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court made it clear that its decision did not influence the pending Title Appeal No.50 of 2014.
PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE, J.
1. This writ petition has been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the writ petitioners against the respondents principally for the following reliefs, for which Rule Nisi has been sought: -
(i) A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the respondents authorities, each one of them, their men, agents, servants, subordinates and/or assigns and more particularly Respondent No. 2 to refer the dispute raised by the petitioners regarding payment of compensation against the petitioners' plots of land to the concerned Principal Civil Court as required under section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
(ii) A writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from disbursing the compensation in respect of the plot of the petitioners to anybody till the disposal of the writ application. There are other prayers but they need not detain us.
2. It appears that the writ petitioners sought this reference from the respondent authorities particularly the competent authority (respondent no. 2) before disbursement of the amount and a hearing was granted by a notice dated December 29, 2015 on January 4, 2016. On such date hearing was given to the petitioners but pursuant to the said meeting, the respondent no. 2 has held the private respondents as the only persons eligible to the said amount and have refused to refer the dispute. The decision of the respondent no. 2 has not been annexed.
3. Since the writ petitioners have prayed for reference of a dispute under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 perhaps a consideration of Section 3H itself should be apposite. Section 3H provides as follows: -
Deposit and payment of amount:-
(1) The amount determined under section 3G shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority before taking possession of the land.
(2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under subsection (1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto.
(3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them.
(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.
(5) Where the amount determined under section 3G by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the arbitrator may award interest at nine per cent, per annum on such excess amount from the date of taking possession under section 3D till the date of the actual deposit thereof.
(6) Where the amount determined by the arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, awarded under sub-section (5) shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (4) shall apply to such deposit.
4. Therefore, the following things are necessary for a dispute to be referred to the principal civil court within the meaning of Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956:
(a) more than one person claiming to be entitled to the amount deposited,
(b) a decision by the competent authority who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them,
(c) a dispute arising as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to whom the same or any part is payable and
(d) the payment bein
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.