The main legal point established in the judgment is that the competent authority must refer any dispute regarding the disbursement of compensation to the Principal Civil Court as required by Section 3H of the National Highways Act.

J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.

1. The petitioners have filed this petition invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the writ in the nature of certiorari challenging the orders Annexure P/4 dated 7.7.2008, Annexure P/9 dated 13.4.2010, Annexure P/10 16.4.2010, seeking further direction to refer the dispute for decision to the Principal Civil Court in whose local jurisdiction the land situated has been acquisitioned, and further prayed to hold the respondent No. 3 liable for the loss caused to the petitioners on account of paying the amount of compensation only to respondent Nos. 4 to 6, exceeding to the jurisdiction which is not conferred on him under the law. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that land in question is situated in Patwari Halka No. 9 of Khasra No. 169 area 1.335 hectare at Village Lolri, Tahsil Tendukhedra, District Narsinghpur. It is also not in dispute that the said land is jointly recorded in the name of the petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The documents indicating the same are available on record vide Annexures P/1 & P/8. Out of the said land, approximately 20 decimal of the land was acquired for the National Highway No. 26 as per the notification issued under Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'Act'). After acquisition of the said land, the compensation was determined to the tune of Rs. 7,08,000/- and a cheque in the joint name of petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were prepared. The petitioners submitted a memorandum before the competent authority as per Annexure P/2 on 3.6.2008, requesting to pay the amount of compensation, after apportioning the same regarding their share. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have also submitted their objection vide Annexure P/3 dated 24.6.2008 inter alia contending that the land of said khasra number has already been partitioned, and the acquired land fallen into their share. It is also stated that the application seeking partition and correction in the revenue entries has been filed by them before the Tahsildar Tendukheda, which is pending for decision.

However, the amount of compensation may not be disbursed to any other co-owner except the respondent Nos. 4 to 6. On receiving the said objection, the competent authority vide letter Annexure P/4 dated 7.7.2008 asked the detail of partition from Tahsildar Tendukheda, whereupon an enquiry was conducted as reveals vide Annexure P/5 dated 25.3.2010. On receiving the said enquiry report, the objection was submitted by the petitioners vide Annexure P/6. However, vide Annexure P/7 dated 29.3.2010, the competent authority further sought clarification regarding Batankan of the land in question, which were replied, interalia contending that in the revenue entries, no such Batankan has been made, which reflects from Annexure P/8 dated 1.4.2010. Even thereafter, vide Annexure P/9 dated 13.4.2010, request was sent to the Project Director to issue cheque in the name of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as per the said decision, and accordingly vide Annexure P/10 dated 16.4.2010, compensation was paid to respondent Nos. 4 to 6, deciding the objection filed by the petitioners.

2. Shri Hare Krishna Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Section 3G of the Act, the determination of compensation ought to be made by the competent authority as per the procedure prescribed, and after determination of the amount, it ought to be deposited and the payments be made as per Section 3H of the Act. It is his contention that if any dispute arises with respect to disbursement of the amount of compensation, raised by any person, who is entitled to receive the same, the competent authority shall refer the dispute for decision to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within whose limits, the land situated. In the case in hand, on determining the compensation, the memorandum was submitted by the petitioners as well