Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
Sreeja, D/o. The Late Parameswaran Nambissan – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 4298 of 2022
Decided on : 13-10-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3-D – Acquisition of land Rules, 2019 – Rule 4 – Claim compensation – Deposit and payment of amount - Power of high court to issue certain writs – Petitioner claims that acquired properties belong to herself and other members in her family – Stating that competent authority did not disburse compensation despite producing necessary records of her title - It is therefore the obligation of the competent authority under Section 3-H of the National Highways Act to see that as soon as the amount of compensation has been deposited with the competent authority, to pay such compensation to the person or persons entitled thereto. Situations may arise where the competent authority would not be able to decide as to who is entitled to receive the compensation (Para 12).
Findings of the Court :
Competent authority holding so proceeded to take over the possession of the property observing that compensation will be distributed to the persons concerned after verifying claims of all interested persons and directions of Munsiff's Court – Court pointed out above as to what shall be procedure to be followed by competent authority when rival claims are received regarding compensation amount – 2nd respondent should not have kept amount of compensation in deferred account and defer the decision for such an indefinite period.
Result: Writ Petition is disposed of.
Certainly. Here are the key legal points derived from the provided document:
The procedure for land acquisition under the relevant Act requires that notices issued under Section 3-G(4) must include specific land details and instruct interested persons to appear before the competent authority, either in person, through an agent, or legal representative, to state their interest (!) .
Under Section 3-H of the Act, once the compensation amount is deposited with the competent authority, it is their obligation to disburse it promptly to the entitled persons. If there are multiple claimants or disputes regarding entitlement, the authority must determine the rightful recipients or refer the matter to the appropriate civil court (!) (!) (!) .
In cases where rival claims or disputes about ownership arise, the competent authority should not indefinitely defer the disbursement of compensation. Instead, they are required to either decide on the rightful claimant based on available evidence or refer the matter to the civil court for resolution, following the prescribed procedures (!) (!) (!) .
When the authority cannot conclusively determine the entitlement due to conflicting claims or pending civil litigation, the proper course of action is to deposit the disputed amount with the civil court, which shall then oversee the disbursement once the dispute is resolved or claims are clarified (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The authority must follow the statutory procedures for handling disputes, including verifying ownership documents, considering rival claims, and adhering to the timelines specified for decision-making and referral to civil courts. Failure to do so can result in liability for interest on the amount withheld and potential judicial intervention (!) (!) (!) .
The procedure emphasizes transparency and fairness, ensuring that all interested parties are given an opportunity to claim their entitlements and that disputes are resolved through proper legal channels rather than indefinite delays (!) (!) .
If the authority is unable to resolve disputes within a specified period, they are mandated to refer the matter to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, following the statutory procedures, including deposit and verification of claims, to ensure rightful disbursement of compensation (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
JUDGMENT :
Ajithkumar, J.
0.5348 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.165/1 and 0.0003 Ares in Sy.No.165/8 of Chelembra Village were acquired by the Government for widening of National Highway 17 (new NH 66) as per notification No.SO.3746(E) dated 30.07.2018 issued under Section 3-D of the National Highways Act, 1956 ('the Act' for short). 0.0224 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.165/1 was also acquired for the same purpose as per notification No.SO.1648/(E) dated 23.04.2019. The competent authority, the 2nd respondent, passed Ext.P3 award on 02.09.2021. The amount of compensation quantified as per Ext.P3 is kept in the account of the competent authority holding that the same will be distributed to the person entitled after verifying the claims of the interested persons and in terms of the directions of the Munsiff's Court, Tirur. The petitioner claims that the acquired properties belong to herself and other members in her family. Stating that the competent authority did not disburse the compensation despite producing necessary records of her title, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to disburse the share of compensation entitled by the petitioner.
2. The Writ Petition was admitted to file on 09.02.2022. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the National Highway Authority of India took notice for respondents 1 to 3 respectively. Notice was directed to be served on respondents 4 to 6.
3. Additional 7th respondent was impleaded. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and additional 7th respondent entered appearance through their learned counsel.
4. Respondents No. 4 and 5 filed a counter affidavit contending that the property comprised in Sy.No.165/1 belongs to the deity of Sree Thiruvengat Maha Shiva Kshetram as is evident from Ext.R4(a) and R4(b) settlement registers. The decree based on which the petitioner claims right and title to the said property is a collusive one and not binding the deity. The deity is not a party to the said decree. Necessary documents to establish the title of the deity to the property were submitted before the 2nd respondent, but he did not accept the claim and release the compensation to the Devaswom. The Writ Petition was accordingly sought to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned DSG of India, the learned Senior Government Pleader, and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4, 5 and 7.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the light of Ext.P1 final decree, the 2nd respondent should have found that the acquired property belonged to the petitioner and other members of her family. Besides Ext.P1, the land tax register and all other necessary documents were produced before the Competent Authority, but he failed to appreciate the said documents. When the title of the petitioner and her co-shares to the acquired property was already held in their favour by a competent civil court, the 2nd respondent should not have postponed the decision on disbursement of the compensation amount, and therefore, the petitioner claims that there shall be direction to the 2nd respondent to disburse the compensation amount.
7. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4, 5 and 7 on the other hand would contend that the 2nd respondent after considering the documents submitted before him by the respective claimants should have taken a decision as to whom the compensation has to be paid and if it was not possible on a summary consideration of the materials produced before him, the matter should have been referred to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction as provided in Section 3-H(4) of the Act. His contention is that the property belongs to the deity and the settlement registers showing that fact are the only possible document available to establish title.
Therefore, the
Section 3-G(4) of Act stipulates that such notice shall state particulars of land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner b....
The competent authority under the National Highways Act lacks jurisdiction to resolve title disputes regarding compensation entitlement, which must be adjudicated by the civil court.
Section 3G of National Highways Act, 1956 provided for procedure for determination of amount payable as compensation.
when the suit is pending before the competent Civil Court, the rights can be crystallized only by the competent Civil Court not by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
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 t....
The National Highways Act, 1956 mandates that once land is vested in the Central Government, compensation must be paid to affected landowners regardless of possession, ensuring their rights are prote....
Compensation for land acquisition must be equitably distributed among all co-owners, and mistaken payments can be reclaimed by the authority.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
