The competent authority must refer disputes regarding apportionment of compensation to the Principal Civil Court as per Section 3-H(4) of the National Highway Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 02.09.2013 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.03/2010-11 by the respondent no.3, by which, the claim of the petitioners regarding apportionment of the amount has been rejected with a decision to make payment in favour of respondent no.4 by holding him to be the exclusive title holder of the land discarding the case of the writ petitioners, while according to the writ petitioners, both the writ petitioners and the respondent no.4 are the co-owners of the land in question in the capacity of siblings.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the petition, required to be enumerated which reads as under:-

It is the case of the writ petitioners that as per the provision of the National Highway Act, 1956, the Ministry of Road Transport and National Highway, Government of India vide notification dated 27.08.2011 published in the daily High Newspaper on 26.09.2011, by which, the land of Bundu, Tamar were acquired for widening of National Highway No.33 and it has also been mentioned that the land details mentioned in the notification dated 27.08.2011 are being declared the land of the Central Government.

The land of the petitioners and respondent no.4 were acquired under the National Highway Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1956). In pursuant to the acquisition, the respondent no.3 determined the amount payable as compensation under Section 3-G of the National Highway Act, 1956 and thereafter, six awards were prepared under Section 3-H of the Act, 1956 vide Panchat No.7, 10, 11, 12 and 19 and intimated vide notice dated 10.12.2011 for payment. All the aforesaid panchat related with the land of the petitioners were issued only in the name of respondent no.4 with the signature of respondent no.3. When the petitioners came to know that the award of compensation has only been prepared in the name of respondent no.4, then they filed their objection before the respondent authorities.

It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the writ petitioners are claiming to be owner of the land in question has made an application for apportionment of the land in lieu of acquisition of land by the National Highway Authority, as acquired under the provision of the Act, 1956.

The respondent no.4 has entered his appearance before the authority concerned as objector, claiming himself to be the co-owner of the land in question. The concerned authority has passed order on 02.09.2013 (impugned) holding the respondent no.4 to be the exclusive owner of the land in question and has passed an order for making payment of compensation in his favour.

The writ petitioners, being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision, have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the instant writ petition inter-alia for the relief for quashing of the order dated 02.09.2013 on the ground that the administrative authority has got no jurisdiction to decide the title of one or the other in case of any petition to be filed for apportionment of the awarded amount.

The said contention has been made on the basis of the provision as contained under Section 3-H(4) of the Act, 1956, wherein, it has been provided that in case of any 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, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.

3. Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by raising the aforesaid legal issue has questioned the jurisdiction of the competent authority i.e., the respondent no.3, who has passed the impugned order dated 02.09.2013 and has submitted that the authority has assumed the jurisdiction of the Principal Civil Court of origin