IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Principal Civil Court to resolve disputes regarding the apportionment of compensation under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The appellant herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the judgment & order dated 11-2-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.595/2020 by which the appellant’s writ petition has been dismissed holding that once the amount of compensation has been disbursed, the Sub-Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer becomes functus officio and liberty has been reserved in favour of the appellant to take appropriate remedies available to him for recovery of the said amount from respondent No.3, in accordance with law.

2. Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that once the dispute is raised by the appellant in light of Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the NH Act’), it was incumbent on the part of the competent authority/respondent No.2 i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated for deciding the issue, but the competent authority itself could not have decided the issue holding that the appellant/objector is not entitled for the amount of compensation and respondent No.3 would be entitled for the amount of compensation. As such, the orders of the competent authority dated 3-1-2020 & 23-8-2019, both, deserve to be set aside as well as the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition also deserves to be set aside.

3. Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)/respondent No.1; Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents No.2, 4 & 5; and Mr. Ankur Seth, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, would support the impugned order and oppose the writ appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

5. The case of the appellant is that the subject land though stood in the name of respondent No.3 at the time of survey of the land by the National Highways Authority of India, which was conducted on 27-10-2015, but thereafter, the appellant has purchased the subject land from respondent No.3 on 3-8-2016 by registered sale deed before the notification issued under Section 3A of the NH Act and therefore he is entitled for the amount of compensation of which he has raised dispute by filing objection dated 24-7-2018 (Annexure P-7) and as such, the dispute ought to have been referred by the competent authority to the District Judge as required under Section 3H(4) of the NH Act, however, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Land Acquisition Officer proceeded to decide the objection holding that at the time of survey, the subject land stood in the name of respondent No.3 and proceeded to disburse the amount of compensation to respondent No.3 ignoring the mandate of Section 3H(4) of the NH Act, which states as under: -

“3H. Deposit and payment of amount.—

(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.”

6. A careful perusal of Section 3H(4) of the NH Act shows that any dispute arising 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. As such, once there is dispute as to whom the amount of compensation or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority has no opt