The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a civil suit related to land acquisition under the National Highways Act to be forwarded by the competent authority under Section 3H(4) and to be filed in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. —This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the following substantive prayers:-

"a) To call for the record of the case pertaining to CMA 121-IV/17, registered No.255/17 instituted on 08.06.2017, titled as Gian Dass & others v. Daulat Ram and others , pending before the Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mandi District Mandi H.P. and after examining the legality and propriety of the case direct the Ld. Trial Court to ask respondent No.8 to take steps for recovering the released amount from the respondent No.1.

b) To direct the Ld. Trial Court to expedite the matter and to decide the stay application and other application and also pass the orders on the stay of the application immediately.

c) To direct the Ld. Trial Court to take appropriate tangible security/bank guarantee from the respondent No.1 with respect to the amount so received by the respondent No.1 from the respondent No.8 and to further direct the respondent No.8 to release the undisputed compensation amount to the plaintiffs/petitioners."

2. The dispute in question relates to land comprised in Khasra Nos.321, 322 and 323, situate in Mauza Jhiri, Tehsil Aut, District Mandi, which were abutting to the National Highway No.21 and were acquired by respondents No.7 and 8 vide notification dated 16.02.2015 published on 27.03.2015 under the National Highways Act (for short ''Act''). The petitioners filed objections against the said notification and laid exclusive claim for the award insofar it pertained to Khasra Nos. 322 and 323, respectively. On 18.01.2017, the Land Acquisition Collector passed the award in respect of the aforesaid Khasra Numbers and issued notices to the petitioners as also respondent No.1 to receive compensation vide notice dated 24.05.2017. Since the respondents were also held entitled to a part of compensation, the petitioners filed a reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ''Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013''). However, the said reference was dismissed as not maintainable constraining the petitioners to file a civil suit under sections 34 to 39 of the Specific Relief Act for the relief as already reproduced herein-above.

3. Upon notices to the respondents, they questioned the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit in view of the specific bar contained under Section 63 of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It was further submitted that in absence of any challenge to the lawful award made by the Collector in exercise of powers conferred in sub-section (1) of Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, the suit was not maintainable. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record.

4. At the outset, it may be noticed that the provisions of the erstwhile Land Acquisition Act of 1894, were specifically excluded to the acquisitions made under the National Highways Act, 1956, as is clearly evident from perusal of Section 3-J of the Act which reads thus:-

"3J. Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 not to apply Nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall apply to an acquisition under this Act.]"

5. However, as regards the applicability of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 which in turn repealed the Act of 1894, there is a difference in position of law. The Central Government was empowered to extend the benefit of First, Second and Third Schedules to the acquisition under the enactment specified in Fourth Schedule of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, within one year in terms of Section 105(3) of the Act, however, no such notification was issued within one year. In the meantime, three ordinances being Ordinance No.9/2014, 4/2015 and 5/2015 were issued, but all these ordinances lapsed. The Central Government thereafter issued a notification dated 28.08.2015 which is extrac