JUDGMENT

Krishna Murari, CJ. - This is an intra-court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against an order and judgment dated 30.01.2018, rendered by the learned Single Judge vide which the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking a direction to respondent No.3 i.e. Competent Authority (LAO)- cum-District Revenue Officer, Panchkula, to refer the dispute between the parties to the reference Court for determining their rights and entitlement to receive compensation qua the acquired land, has since been dismissed.

2. The case set out by the petitioner has been that he had purchased a land measuring 8 kanals 4 marlas, comprised in khasra No.30//11/1, situated in village Bagwali, vide sale deed dated 16.12.1991. And he was put in possession. However, vide notification under Section (i) of Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956, [for short 'the Act'] published on 4.12.2009, the area measuring 2 kanals out of the said land along with another chunk of land, situated in different villages in district Panchkula, was sought to be acquired by the Ministry of Shipping Road and Transport and Highways Government of India. A final declaration under sub Section (i) of Section 3-D of the Act was published on 12.02.2011. And, eventually the competent authority assessed compensation and rendered the award No.42 dated 4.2.2013. Accordingly, vide application dated 5.7.2013, the appellant moved the District Revenue Officer, Panchkula, to award compensation in lieu of acquisition of his holding. Likewise, another application dated 13.09.2013, was moved by respondents No.5 to 8, who alleged to be the co-owners, claiming compensation qua the same land, as also the area comprised in khasra No.19//2. But as averred, when the appellant contacted the competent authority (respondent No.3), he was rather advised to seek partition of the land purchased by him, for only thereafter he could be released the compensation. As a result, the appellant filed a partition application, which was decided by the revenue authorities on 14.05.2014. Whereupon, the land comprised in khasra No.30//11/1 measuring (8-4) itself was allotted to the appellant, while the other co-sharers were allotted a land comprised in khasra No.17//25/2 (2-16), 30//19/2 (6-04), 30//20/1 (4-18), 30//22/1 (1-16), 30//23/1 (2010). But even though he was the exclusive owner of the acquired land, he was not awarded the compensation therefor. Resultantly, he moved an application dated 30.03.2015, to ascertain as to why the compensation was not being released. And, in response, the respondents-authorities vide letter dated 10.04.2015, informed the appellant that compensation qua the acquired land had since been disbursed to all the co-sharers in terms of their respective shares including the appellant. Resultantly, the appellant complained to the authorities that since the acquired land, measuring 2 kanals comprised in khasra No.30//11/1, had fallen to his share in partition proceedings, he alone was entitled to receive the compensation. As a result, the legal opinion of the Deputy District Attorney was sought for, who vide noting dated 2.9.2015, opined that since there existed a dispute amongst the co-sharers as regards title and entitlement to receive compensation the matter required to be referred to the Civil Court with the disputed amount. But despite that the respondents-authorities declined to refer the dispute to the reference Court as the compensation had already been disbursed to all the co-owners. It was in this background the appellant approached this Court, vide writ petition referred to above, alleging that the action of the respondents-authorities in not making a reference to the Civil Court for determination of dispute between the parties was wholly illegal. And, for, the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed vide impugned order and judgment, thus this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that indisputably the appellant had purchased the la