AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. S. P. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Ms. G. Hazarika, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1. I have also heard Mr. N. Das, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 and Mr. C. Baruah, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners being aggrieved by the non-release of the compensation relating to the land covered by Dag No.141/Patta No. 81, Dag No.97/Patta No.113, Dag No.99/Patta No.113, Dag No.140/Patta No.81, Dag No.261/Patta No.81 and Dag No.262/Patta No.113, Mouza Boko, Village Borpara, Boko Revenue Circle as well as the notice dated 09.06.2026 whereby the Respondent No.3 had directed the Petitioners to vacate the land.
It is the submission of Mr. S. P. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that there is no dispute as regards the questions of entitlement and/or the apportionment of the compensation and therefore the Competent Authority ought to disburse the said amount of compensation in respect to the lands in question.
This Court has also heard Mr. C. Baruah, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who submitted that the amount of compensation had already been disbursed to the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition.
Mr. N. Das, the learned Government Advocate who appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 more particularly Respondent No.3 who is the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition submitted on instructions that the amount has been deposited by the Central Government in terms with Section 3H(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’).
This Court finds it pertinent to take note of that upon a notification issued under Section 3D of the Act of 1956, the land in question vests upon the Central Government. Under such circumstances, the non-release of the compensation cannot be a ground for not vacating the land in question. Under such circumstances, the question of interference with the notice dated 09.06.2026 does not arise.
Insofar as the question of non-payment of compensation is concerned, Section 3H of the Act of 1956 is a provision by which the payment of compensation is disbursed and in the case of disputes of complex nature pertaining to entitlement of the compensation or the apportionment of the compensation, it is the Principal Civil Court of ordinary jurisdiction within whose jurisdiction the land is acquired has to decide.
It is also very pertinent to mention that the mandate of Section 3H(3) of the Act of 1956 makes it very clear that there is a duty cast upon the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition to disburse the compensation unless a dispute of complex nature arises on the question of entitlement and/or apportionment of the compensation.
In this regard, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Venkataswamy and Others Vs. Gowramma and Another reported in (2026) SCC OnLine SC 1487 and Paragraph No.22.1 to 22.7 being relevant are reproduced herein under:
“22.1.At this stage, it becomes necessary to examine the true scope and ambit of Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956. Since the controversy in the present appeal turns upon the interpretation of subsection (4) thereof, the relevant provisions are extracted below:—
“3H. Deposit and payment of amount.- (1) The amount determined under section 3G shall be deposited by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the competent authority before taking possession of the land.
(2)As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto.
(3)Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them.
(4)If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. …”
22.2.Section 3H was introduced by Act 16 of 1997 as part of the comprehensive legislative framework governing acquisition of land for National Highways. While the amendment sought to facilitate expeditious acquisition for development of national highway infrastructure, it simultaneously recognised the corresponding right of persons deprived of their property to receive just compensation.
22.3.The scheme of Sections 3G and 3H is, therefore, complementary. Section 3G provides for determination of the amount payable upon acquisition, whereas Section 3H prescribes the mechanism for its deposit and disbursement. Under sub-section (2), the competent authority is under a statutory obligation to disburse the compensation to the person or persons entitled thereto. Where rival claims are raised, subsection (3) casts a further duty upon the competent authority to determine, in its opinion, the persons entitled to receive the compensation and the extent of their respective shares.
22.4.Recognising, however, that disputes of a more complex nature may arise, Parliament enacted subsection (4). It provides that where any dispute arises either regarding the apportionment of the compensation or regarding the person to whom the compensation, or any part thereof, is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within whose territorial jurisdiction the acquired land is situated.
22.5.The expression “any person to whom the amount… is payable” cannot be read in isolation or assigned a narrow meaning. The entitlement to receive compensation necessarily flows from the legal right over the acquired property immediately prior to its acquisition. Consequently, where rival claimants assert competing rights to the acquired land, the determination of the person entitled to receive compensation inevitably requires an adjudication of the underlying claim of title. Such an inquiry is incidental and integral to the jurisdiction conferred under Section 3H(4).
22.6.We are, therefore, unable to concur with the view taken by the High Court that the Reference Court lacks jurisdiction to examine disputes relating to title. To accept such an interpretation would render the expression “person to whom the amount is payable” otiose and substantially defeat the object of the reference contemplated under Section 3H(4). A reference to the principal civil court is not intended to be a mere ministerial exercise of dividing the compensation amongst claimants. Its purpose is to secure a judicial determination of the person lawfully entitled to receive the compensation where such entitlement itself is disputed.
22.7.The jurisdiction exercised by the Reference Court under Section 3H(4) is, therefore, wide enough to incidentally determine questions of title insofar as such determination is necessary for deciding the person entitled to the compensation arising out of the acquisition. Any contrary interpretation would frustrate the legislative scheme and compel parties to simultaneously pursue independent civil suits for declaration of title, thereby defeating the very object of referring the dispute to the principal civil court.”
Taking into account the above proposition of law, it is the opinion of this Court that if there is no dispute as regards entitlement and/or apportionment of the compensation or if such disputes are not complex in nature, the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition can resolve such dispute and disburse the payment to the Petitioners/persons entitled.
Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:
The challenge to the notice dated 09.06.2026 issued by the Respondent No.4 is rejected for the reasons aforementioned.
The Respondent No.3 who is the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition shall forthwith disburse the amount subject to there being no complex disputes pertaining to entitlement and/or apportionment of the compensation.
If there are disputes of complex nature, the Respondent No.3 shall forthwith and not later than 15 days from the date a certified copy of this judgment is served upon him refer the dispute to the learned Court of the District Judge, Kamrup (R). Immediately thereupon, the amount which is payable on account of the compensation shall also be disbursed to the learned Court of the District Judge, Kamrup (R). The District Judge, Kamrup (R) shall decide such disputes within the contours of Sections 3H(4) of the Act of 1956 and thereupon disburse the amount to the person(s) entitled to as orders passed in the said proceedings.
Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.