The main legal point established is that disputes regarding apportionment of compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956 should be referred to the Civil Court for adjudication, as per the relevant sections of the Act.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) -The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to respondent No.2 for referring the matter to principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, namely, the District Judge, Ludhiana for the purposes of apportionment of compensation. The dispute pertains to land falling in Rect.No.46, Khasra No. 18/3, 19/2, 20/2, 21, 22, 23/1 Rect.No.59, Khasra No.1/1/1, 3/1,3, Rect.No.39, Khasra No.11/3, 19/1, 18/2/1, 19/2/1, 20/1 and Rect.No.38 Khasra No.16/1/2, 15/2 situated in village Bondli, Hadbast No.107, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. The land was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 vide notification dated 04.02.2017 thereafter the award was passed on 12.07.2017 (PI).

2. The case of the petitioners as pleaded in the writ petition is that a settlement dated 16.05.1995 was arrived at among the owners of Rect. No.46 & 59 and the forefathers of the petitioners who were owners of the land in Rect.No.38 & 39 had agreed to exchange the land measuring 28 kanals 5 marlas comprised in Rect.No.38 & 39 with land measuring 28 kanals 5 marlas in Rect.No.46 & 49 mutually inter se parties. A civil suit was filed which was decreed in the year 1998 and affirmed by higher courts. It is their cases that no one acted upon and got executed the Civil Court decree. The owners of the above-mentioned chunks of land mortgaged their respective shares of land to get loans. It is their cases that mutation had been done without knowledge and intimation of the petitioners and on the basis of the exchange deed of 1995 and the judgment dated 20.05.1998 and the private respondents No.5 to 10 have received the money. It is not disputed that respondent No.4's share is yet to be paid to him but on account of the interim order passed this Court dated 30.05.2018 the amount has not been disbursed.

3. It is not disputed that the petitioners have filed an application under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 to respondent No.2 for referring the matter to the Civil Court as prescribed under the Act. The stand of the State in the reply filed by respondent No.2 is that on account of exchange and civil suit between the parties has resulted in the sanctioning of mutation of exchange which has changed the khasra No. of the petitioners. The assessment registered prepared by Naib Tehsildar Samrala implemented the mutation of exchange between the parties on 29.12.2017. The deletion had been done from the land they had given in exchange and the name had been entered in the land which they had got by way of exchange. Accordingly as per the latest revenue record and there being no ambiguity in the ownership, the matter was not referred to the Civil Court. It was further averred that compensation had to be paid to the validly recorded owner of land being acquired and there was no remarks on the assessment register regarding bank loan, so no deduction had been made from the land compensation. It is further averred that the petitioners are free to challenge the change in mutation proceedings before the competent Court.

4. The NHAI in its reply has taken neutral stance that it had no concern with the internal dispute of apportionment and they have been unnecessarily dragged in the litigation.

5. Respondent No.4 in its reply has referred to the Civil Court decree which had been appended by the petitioners as Annexure P9. It is submitted that the appeal filed by Gurdial Singh had been dismissed on 07.01.1999 and there after had been upheld in RSA No.1386 of 1999 on 14.05.2000 (R4/1). It is further averred that the revenue authorities have sanctioned the mutation on the basis of judgment and decree obtained by them in their favour. There was an oral exchange amongst the answering respondents and others and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and possessions were exchanged. The Civil Suit had been filed by Nirmal Singh and o