The competent authority must refer disputes regarding compensation apportionment to the Principal Civil Judge as mandated by the National Highways Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mrs. R. Borah, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3; Mr. N. Goswami, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 to 7; Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2; Ms. N. Bordoloi, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4; Mr. A.Z. Ahmed, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 8 and Mr. K.H. Saikia, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 9.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the respondent No. 6 whereby instead of referring the dispute to the learned Court of the Principal Civil Judge, the respondent No. 6 vide the impugned order withheld the disbursement of the land value of the acquired land and further directed that the zirat value be paid to the respondent No. 8.

3. This Court has duly taken into consideration that from the materials on record it transpires that the plot of land admeasuring 2 Kathas covered by Dag No. 155 of Patta No. 56 of Village Fulkumari under Mouza Gauripur in the district of Dhubri was acquired in connection with L.A. Case No. 1/2020–21 in favour of the NHIDCL. It is seen that pursuant to such acquisition, the NHIDCL has already deposited the compensation amount as required under Section 3H(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, “the Act of 1956”). Disputes have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 regarding the entitlement to the compensation and/or the apportionment of the compensation.

4. Taking into account that such disputes cannot be decided by the respondent No. 6 in terms with Section 3H(3) of the Act of 1956, the same ought to have been referred in terms with Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956 to the learned Court of the Principal Civil Judge within whose jurisdiction the land has been acquired. In this regard reference can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofVinod Kumar & Others Vs. District Magistrate, Mau & Others reported in(2023) 19 SCC 126 wherein the Supreme Court observed at paragraph No. 25 as follows:

“25. The scheme of the 1956 Act and the statutory provisions referred to above makes it very clear that once any land is acquired under the 1956 Act, the competent authority is obliged to pay an amount by way of compensation. There is a procedure which has been prescribed under Section 3 -G of the 1956 Act. Sub-section (5) of -G makes it abundantly clear that if the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of -G is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount will have to be determined by the arbitrator who may be appointed by the Central Government on the strength of an application by either of the parties. -H provides that the amount determined towards compensation under -G will have to be deposited by the Central Government in accordance with the rules. It is only after such amount is deposited by the competent authority that the possession of the land can be taken. Sub-section (4) of -H talks about apportionment of the amount. The language of sub-section (4) of -H is plain and simple. It provides that if any disputes arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof, the competent authority is obliged 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.”

5. It is seen that vide the impugned order dated 25.10.2024, t