The main legal point established in the judgment is that the competent authority under the National Highways Act is obligated to refer disputes regarding the apportionment of compensation to the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate on the merits of the controversy.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 6.10.2015 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.4. Further, directions have been sought to be issued to respondent No.4 to refer the petitions filed by the petitioners to the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction for adjudication of issue of apportionment of compensation of the acquired land as per Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short “the Act”).

2. A few facts necessary for adjudication of the instant writ petition as narrated therein may be noticed. Government of India vide notification dated 7.8.2013 issued under Section 3-A of the Act followed by notification 26.2.2014 under Section 3-D of the Act acquired the land of ten villages in Tehsil Patran District, Patiala including the land of the petitioners for building (widening/four-laning etc.), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No. 71(52) on the stretch of land from K.M. 181.805 to 238.695 (Sangrur-Khanauri-Patran Punjab/Haryana Border Section). The award was passed on 7.11.2014 (Annexure P-1) by respondent No.4. The petitioners were in cultivating possession of the acquired land for the last about 50-55 years as tenants of the Punjab Government and were earning livelihood of their families by cultivating the land in dispute. They have been in continuous cultivating possession of the acquired land and made number of improvements which even culminated into ownership and, therefore, have right, title and interest held by lessor and the lessee together and are entitled to receive compensation amount to the extent of 75% of the acquired land. When no compensation was paid to the petitioners of the land acquired in their possession, they filed petitions dated 21.1.2015 (Annexures P-2 to P-4, respectively) through counsel for apportionment of compensation but respondent No.4 did not allow the same to be registered in its office. The petitioners served a legal notice dated 12.3.2015 (Annexure P-5) upon respondent No.4 for consideration of petitions filed by them for the apportionment of compensation of the acquired land, but to no effect. Thereafter, the petitioners filed CWP No. 14585 of 2015 and this Court vide order dated 22.7.2015 (Annexure P-6) disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to respondent No.4 to take a decision on the legal notice dated 12.3.2015 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law. As the dispute was with regard to apportionment of compensation, respondent No.4 was required to refer the petitions to the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction for adjudication as per Section 3H(4) of the Act, but respondent No.4 vide order dated 6.10.2015 (Annexure P-7) rejected the claim of the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. The main issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is relating to the interpretation of Section 3H(4) of the Act.

5. It would be advantageous to reproduce relevant portion of Section 3H(4) of the Act, which reads thus:-

“3H. Deposit and payment of amount.-(1) The amount determined under section 3G shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority before taking possession of the land.

XX XX XX

XX XX XX

(4) If 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.”

6. The plain reading of the said provision makes it clear that wherever any dispute arises regarding the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof, and also as to t