A valid subsequent will may extinguish rights under an earlier will, negating the necessity for Civil Court referral when no valid dispute exists under Section 3H(4) of the Act.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is stated to be a co-owner with respect to certain properties in Re-Sy.No.212/1 of Pilicode Village, Hosdurg Taluk, Kasaragod District, pursuant to the will of the year 1955. The petitioner states that certain extent of the properties covered by the afore will was acquired for the purpose of widening the National Highway. Separate awards are also passed, as evidenced by Exts.P2 to P5. It is the case of the petitioner that even in the afore awards, the petitioner was not a party. Subsequently, on coming to know about the afore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 objection before the 3^rd respondent, pointing out about his right over the property referred to above and also his share in the compensation awarded. However, the 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P7, summarily, pointing out that the claim with respect to the will of the year 1955 had been considered while passing the award. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P7 issued as above that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition.

2. I have heard Sri.C.Muralikrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.A.Arunkumar, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 9, 17, 19 to 32, 35 to 38, 40 to 49, 51 to 55, 58 to 72, 74, 75, 77 to 80, Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan, the learned counsel for respondents 81 to 83 and Sri.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order at Ext.P7 has been issued without hearing the petitioner. According to him, with reference to the mandate under the provisions of Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 , (for short, the Act'), when a dispute/objection in the nature of Ext.P6 is raised, it was incumbent on the part of the authorities to have referred the matter for consideration by the Civil Court as presented thereunder. The learned counsel would also state that a partition suit has already been instituted, as evidenced by Exts.P9 and 10 and that this is all the more reason why the matter requires to be adjudicated under the provisions of (4) of the Act by the Civil Court.

4. Per contra, Sri. Kodoth Sreedharan, the learned counsel for respondents 81 to 83 sought to rely on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court inSaravanabhava v. District Collector, Ernakulam [ 2025 (5) KLT 431 ] in support of his contention that, in the light of the subsequent will which has been noticed by the authority, there is no requirement for any reference as contended by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the subsequent will has also been legally upheld by Exts.P11 and P12 judgments of the Civil Court. As regards Exts.P11 and P12, it is the submission of Sri.C.Muralikrishnan that the petitioner herein or none of the legatees pursuant to Ext.P1 will, were not a party in the afore proceedings and hence, they may not apply to the case at hand. Sri.C.Muralikrishnan also sought to rely on the judgment of the Apex Court inVinod Kumar and Ors v. District Magistrate Mau & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.5107 of 2022.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and connected records.

6. As noticed earlier, Ext.P7 has been issued by the 3^rd respondent, specifically taking note of the contentions raised on the basis of 1955 will and holding that there is a subsequent will at Ext.P8, as per which 1955 will has been cancelled. The 3^rd respondent has also referred to the judgment of the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg in O.S.No.53 of 1982 at Ext.P11.

7. In the light of the afore, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court Saravanabhava (supra) is required to be noticed. The Division Bench of this Court, considered the contextual meaning to term “dispute” under Section 3H (4) of the Act and has also concluded that, on the basis of the title deed or any other document re