In disputes regarding entitlement or apportionment of compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956, complex questions of title must be referred to the competent civil court under Section 3H(4), as administrative determinations by the competent authority cannot override the necessity for judicial adjudication.

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Aman Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, learned counsel, appearing for the UOI / respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.7.

2. This writ appeal is presented against the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.274 of 2026 (Mohani Vishvas vs. The National Highway Authority of India & others), whereby, the writ petition filed by writ petitioner / respondent No.7 herein has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge.

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the Petitioner/Respondent No.7 herein had filed the writ petition being WPC No. 274/2026 seeking following reliefs:-

10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 6 to refer the matter before the Principal Civil Court having jurisdiction under Section 3(H) (4) of National Highway Act.

10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no. 6 not to disburse the awarded amount in favour of respondent no. 7 till the decision of apportionment dispute by the competent Civil Court having jurisdiction, accordance with law.

10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

4. It was submitted by the Petitioner that a lease of the disputed land acquired by the Respondent/NHAI was issued in favour of the late Surendra Mandal. It was further alleged that the Respondent No.7 (Appellant herein) had got the land mutated in his name in revenue records without knowledge of the Petitioner and after acquisition, the award acquisition has been issued in name of Respondent No.7 (Appellant herein). The Petitioner had made an objection before the Respondent No. 6 Competent Authority under NHAI which was not considered and therefore she filed the said writ petition seeking direction to the Respondent No.6 to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court under section 3H(4) of National Highways Act, 1956 to resolve the dispute as to the apportionment. The learned Single Judge by passing the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 disposed of the said writ petition with direction to the Respondent No. 6 to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and further directed to the Respondent No.6 not to disburse the amount of award of compensation against acquisition of land till decision of the Principal Civil Court. Hence this Appeal has been filed by the Appellant (Respondent No.7 therein).

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed in WPC No. 274 of 2026 suffers from a patent error of law, as the learned Single Judge has incorrectly invoked Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 while ignoring the scheme of the provision in its entirety. It is contended that Section 3H(3) clearly mandates that in cases where multiple claimants assert entitlement to compensation, the competent authority itself is required to determine the rightful recipients and apportionment. He further submitted that in the present case, the competent authority (Respondent No.6) has already adjudicated the objection raised by the petitioner and rejected the same vide order dated 20.01.2026. Therefore, no occasion arises for making a reference to the Principal Civil Court under Section 3H(4), and the dire