IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal principle established in the judgment is that disputes regarding apportionment of compensation under the National Highways Act should be referred to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, as per the provisions of Sections 3H and 3H(4) of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 27.9.2019, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (C) (Rural) cum Competent authority Land Acquisition (NHAI), Shimla (in short “CALA”) whereby objections having been filed by the petitioners herein under Sections 3H and 3H(4) of the National Highways Act (in short “the Act”) to award No. 21/2015 dated 12.10.2015 and award No. 21-F dated 24.7.2018, passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, came to be dismissed, petitioners have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for following relief:

“(i) It is, therefore, prayed that the present Writ Petition may kindly be allowed by issuing a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be issued by quashing/setting aside the order dated 27.9.2019, Annexure P-12, passed by the Learned Sub Divisional Officer (C) (Rural) Cum Competent Authority Land Acquisition (NHAI) Shimla in Case No. 90/2018 titled Krishan Kumar Sood and Others vs. Kailash District Co-Op. Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. and Others and a writ of Mandamus be also issued against the Respondents directing Respondent No. 3 to refer the matter in dispute regarding apportionment of amount of compensation with respect to the acquisition of building known as Shekhar Bhawan, Dhalli, Bhattakuffar, Bye Pass Road, NH-2, Dhalli, Shimla-12 standing built upon land comprised in Khasra Nos. 87, 88 and 89 Mauza Chhakdyal Tehsil Shimla Rural District Shimla to the Principal Court of original jurisdiction in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 or such other orders, direction or writ as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper to meet the ends of justice be also passed on this petition in the ends of law and justice. Orders for calling the entire records of the case from the respondents be also passed. Costs of the petition be also allowed to the petitioners against the Respondents.”

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners is that once objections under Sections 3H and 3H(4) of the Act, were filed by the petitioners qua the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, specifically stating therein that they being tenants are also entitled to compensation payable to owner of the property, CALA had no option but to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court/District Judge, who, after having ascertained entitlement, is also competent to make order with regard to apportionment, if any.

3. For having bird’s eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record, are that building known as Shekhar Bhawan situated at Dhalli, Bhattakufar situate at Dhalli Bye-pass road, NH-22, having five floors and additional parking owned by respondent No. 4, came to be acquired by NHAI for construction of road and qua that, compensation vide two separate awards came to be awarded in favour of owner of the building, as detailed herein above. Prior to initiation of acquisition proceedings, allegedly, the petitioners herein were given space in the building as detailed herein above on monthly rent of Rs. 1, 30,000/- for a period of fifteen years. Rent agreement was duly registered with the Registrar, Shimla, and pursuant to same, petitioners were carrying out their business, but once factum with regard to acquisition of property in question came to their notice, coupled with the fact that they have already spent huge amount for improvement of the property, they filed objections under Sections 3H and 3H(4) of the Act for apportionment. In the aforesaid objections, petitioners claimed that respondent No. 4 was though in the knowledge of the initiation of acquisition proceedings at the time of leasing out the property to them but yet chose not to d