ORDER :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

2. Short issue that arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether application of petitioner who sought for payment of compensation ought to have been referred to Civil Court under sub-section (4) of Section 3H of National Highways Act, 1956 or not?

3. Petitioner claiming to be in possession and being owner of land bearing Block No.547 admeasuring 0-77-90 Hectare-Guntha-Are situated in village Dayadra, Taluka and District Bharuch is seeking for payment of compensation of said land which came to be acquired by 3rd respondent for Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway, which had resulted in passing of an award on 27.6.2017 for a sum of Rs.25,05,017/-.

4. An application came to be filed by the petitioner on 20.2.2018 requesting for payment of compensation. It was specifically contended that applicant had remained present during the process of acquisition of said land and had extended his full cooperation for said acquisition and claiming right title and possession over the subject property sought for payment of compensation. Documentary evidence in support of said claim was appended to said representation. An alternate prayer was also made under said representation, which reads thus :

“Applicant also submits that if competent authority finds any difficulty in making payment to the applicant, the amount of compensation should be deposited with the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch by making a reference under the provisions of Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.”

5. Said representation came to be examined and rejected on the ground that possession of the subject land was not with petitioner but was with Mr. Adam Muse Amanji. Petitioner seems to have pursued his grievance with Special Land Acquisition Officer and this resulted in yet another communication being forwarded by said office to the petitioner on 23.10.2018 (Annexure-F) stating thereunder that Special Land Acquisition Officer has no right to decide title of the land and entitlement of compensation amount. Said decision as per communication dated 23.10.2018 is based on the opinion of District Government Pleader. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.

6. Learned counsels appearing for the parties have reiterated their contentions as urged in the respective pleadings. Since the impugned order disclose that according to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, possession of the subject property was with one Mr. Adam Muse Amanji, as reflected from the revenue records, this Court entertained a doubt as to whether compensation has been disbursed in his favour or anybody else. Today, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that compensation has not been disbursed either in favour of Mr. Adam Muse Amanji or anybody else in respect of subject property. His submissions is placed on record. However to stave off any technical plea being raised, we permitted the petitioner to take out notice to said person also namely Mr. Adam Muse Amanji by substituted service, namely through paper publication and Civil Application 1 of 2022 filed for said purpose came to be allowed vide order dated 5.5.2022. 7th respondent was duly served and there has been no representation and as he such he has been placed ex-parte.

7. Having regard to the language employed in sub-section (4) of Section 3H of the National Highways Act, which clearly mandates that on determination of the amount under Section 3G, which in the instant case had crystallized by way of an award dated 27.6.2017, the amount so determined by way of award was required to be deposited by the Central Government with the competent authority before taking possession of the land, which is said to have been done. When a claim is made by a person interested in amoun