The main legal principle established is that a genuine dispute must arise for referral to the civil court under Section 3H(4) of the National Highway Act, 1956, emphasizing the need for disputes that necessarily have to be decided and rejecting automatic referral for simple disputes without basis.

JUDGMENT :

The short point to be decided in these writ petitions are about the scope of enquiry to be conducted by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (hereinafter mentioned as CALA) under Section 3H(3) of the National Highway Act, 1956 (for short Act, 1956) and also the stage when the competent authority (CALA) shall refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction when a 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.

2. WP(C) Nos.21231/23, 22382/23, 23489/23, and 23901/23 are treated as the leading cases and I will narrate the facts in these cases. In all other cases, the same contentions are raised and therefore, the facts of the other cases are not mentioned separately.

3. WP(C) No.21231/23 and WP(C) No.22382/23 are filed by Kaprat Family Trust and Another. However, in WP(C) No.21231/23, the Kaprat Family Trust is represented by Mr.Vijayabhanu Kaprat, and in WP(C) No.22382/23, Mr. Kaprat Krishna Kumar represents the Kaprat Family Trust. There is a dispute between Kaprat Krishna Kumar and Kaprat Vijayabhanu about the authority to represent Kaprat Family Trust. Since that is not a question to be decided in these writ petitions, I am not going to the same. But it is a fact that, Kaprat Family Trust is represented by two individuals in these cases.

4. I will narrate the facts in WP(C) No.21231/23 in brief. According to the petitioners in this writ petition, the 2nd petitioner is representing the 1st petitioner Kaprat Family Trust. It is submitted that the 1 st petitioner Family Trust was created by the Family members of Kaprat Family at Venniyur, Malappuram District during a family partition that took place in the year 1958. The said partition deed stands registered as document No.752/1959 of SRO, Thirurangadi. Ext.P1 is the partition deed. It is submitted that, by the said partition deed, 718 items of immovable properties enumerated under A schedule to Ext.P1 partition deed were endowed for the benefit of the family deities who are perpetual minors namely, Sree Kurumba, Bhuvaneswari, Dharma Sasthavu, Vettaikorumakan, Bhagavathi, Rakshass, Kalari Paradevatha, Sarpakavu, maintenance of family temples, Kalari, ponds, as well as to conduct religious rights and rituals. It is further submitted that the entire items of properties enumerated in Schedule A of the partition deed No.752/1959 of SRO, Thirurangadi, assigned in favour of the deities mentioned above are exclusively owned by the deities who are perpetual minors for all purposes. Further, it is also submitted that, as reflected in Ext.P1 partition deed, a trustee is appointed to minister and monitor the properties that originally belonged to the deities, and the said trustee is only the custodian of the said properties on behalf of the deities of the Tharavad.

5. It is submitted that certain items of the properties included in A schedule of Ext.P1 were notified under the provisions of Act, 1956 for acquisition, for the purpose of widening National Highway 66 (for short NH 66). It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know of the acquisition through the notification issued under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, which was published in the major dailies. On coming to know about the proceedings, the 2nd petitioner submitted an application before the 2nd respondent in the year 2018, requesting the 2nd respondent to consider the status/claim of the petitioners in the properties so notified, before passing awards in respect of such properties. Since the same was not considered, the 2nd petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No 37893/2018, in which this Court directed the 2nd respondent CALA to consider the application of the 2nd petitioner, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. But, it is submitted that no further actions were initiated from the office of the 2nd respondent for more than 2 years and thus the 2nd petitione