The Competent Authority under the National Highways Act lacks jurisdiction to resolve disputes regarding the apportionment of compensation, necessitating referral to the Principal Civil Court when such disputes arise.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. Both the above appeals have been preferred against a common judgment of a learned Single Judge dated May 1, 2025 by which two writ petitions bearing WPA No. 3419 of 2025 and WPA No. 4469 of 2025 were allowed, thereby setting aside Order No. 4 dated November 27, 2024 passed by the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition (CALA), Purulia, apportioning compensation payable for acquisition of Plot No. 786 in Mouza – Belguma, JL No. 41, in connection with LA Case No. 21 of 2015/9H-32, for NH-32 Project Work under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1956 Act”) between the present appellants.

2. The short issue involved in the present appeal is the interplay between sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 3H of the 1956 Act.

3. The writ court, while setting aside the impugned order of the CALA, directed the dispute to be referred to the jurisdictional Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction within the contemplation of sub-section (4) of Section 3H.

4. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants in both the matters seeks to take the court through a genealogical table, contending that one Nesharath Ali Khan (since deceased) was the original owner of the concerned plot, that is Plot No. 786, which has a total area of 2.07 acres, out of which about 0.919 acre was acquired by the Highway Authority. Nesharath died intestate in 1945, leaving behind his two sons, namely Md. Khan and Abed Ali Khan, and two daughters, Jamal Banu and Jahan Bibi. According to the appellants, the said daughters transferred their share by way of a gift deed (heba) in 1948 to Md. Khan. Md. Khan subsequently sold his share in the year 1951 to Nasiban Bibi and Sahidan Bibi. Subsequently, a partition suit having been filed by Sahidan Bibi, the same culminated in a compromise decree dated October 3, 1966, whereby Md. Khan was acknowledged to be the owner of the property originally transferred by Jamal Banu and Jahan Bibi in his favour. Md. Khan gifted the property in 1973 in favour of his wife Badrunessa, who sold a portion of the property in favour of Lakshmi Mahato and Besi Mahato, who in turn transferred the property in favour of Chandan Baral and others.

5. Be that as it may, it is argued that the legal heirs of Md. Khan, the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge, have no right, title and interest in respect of the property of Abed Ali Khan (50% share) and that Majid Khan and Ashma Begum, the appellant nos. 1 and 2 in FMA No. 950 of 2025, being the son and daughter respectively of Abed Ali Khan, inherited the said 50%.

6. Consequentially, it is argued that the order passed by the CALA on November 27, 2024 holding that Majid Khan and Ashma Begum will get 50% compensation of the acquired area of 0.919 acre in Plot No. 786 is valid, lawful and within the competency of the CALA to adjudicate.

7. It is argued that private respondent nos. 35 to 41 have not questioned the orders of the CALA and, thus, have accepted the same. Hence, they cannot raise any objection as to the correctness of the same at this juncture.

8. Learned senior counsel argues that Section 3 H(3) of the 1956 Act confers jurisdiction on the Competent Authority (CALA) to form its opinion and determine the persons who are entitled to receive compensation. -I of the Act clothes the Competent Authority with the power of a Civil Court for such purpose. Only when a dispute arises with regard to apportionment of compensation, the dispute is to be referred to the Principal Civi