AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. L. R. Mazumder, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in WP(C) No.1404/2025 who are the Respondent Nos.9, 10 & 11 in WP(C) No.262/2025. Mr. H. Sarmah, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition as well as the other officials of the District Administration of Cachar and Mr. C. Baruah, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the NHAI as well as NHIDCL.
The issue involved in both the writ petitions is as to who is the person entitled to the compensation for acquisition of lands under Dag Nos.497, 498, 499 and 500 of Rongpur Part-I which have been acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’).
The Petitioners in WP(C) No.1404/2025 as well as the Petitioners in WP(C) No.262/2025 claim their entitlement over the compensation payable for acquisition of the said lands.
Pursuant to the directions passed in the present proceedings, Mr. H. Sarmah, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate has placed before this Court two sets of instructions issued by the Additional District Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar both dated 19.08.2026 which are kept on record and marked with the letters “X” and “Y”.
From a perusal of the instructions, it appears that the following lands have been acquired pursuant to the issuance of the Notification dated 06.03.2024 under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 relevant for the purpose of the present case:-
1 katha 5 chataks 8 gondas under Dag No.497;
7 kathas 6 gondas under Dag No.498;
4 kathas 12 chataks 9 gondas under Dag No.499; and
1 katha 5 chataks 8 gondas under Dag No.500 in connection with the construction of four laning road from Silchar to Jiribam, Package-I under Bharatmala Project.
It was also mentioned in the said instructions that in terms with the Awards so made under Section 3G of the Act of 1956, compensation has been shown to be payable to Hasina Begum Laskar, wife of Jashim Uddin Laskar and others, Parul Ahmed Laskar son of Late Mazir Uddin Laskar and others, Parul Ahmed Laskar, Jashim Uddin Laskar, both sons of Late Mazir Uddin Laskar and others and Parul Ahmed Laskar, son of Late Mazir Uddin Laskar and others. It is also mentioned that none of the beneficiaries have approached submitting any claim petition for receiving the amount from their end.
This Court at this stage finds it relevant to take note of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Venkataswamy and Others vs. Gowramma and Another, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1487 wherein the Supreme Court explained the scope and ambit of Section 3H of the Act of 1956. Paragraph Nos.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 sub-section (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, sub-section (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 sub-section (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 purpose 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.”
From a perusal of the above quoted Paragraphs, it would show that the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition has been conferred with the power to decide the disputes as regards entitlement and apportionment. However, if the disputes are of complex nature which would require going into details on the question of title etc., then it is the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction within whose jurisdiction the land had been acquired who can decide the question of entitlement of the compensation as well as the apportionment of the compensation. The Supreme Court further observed that while deciding the entitlement as well as the apportionment of the compensation, the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction can also incidentally decide the question of title to determine the question of entitlement as well as the apportionment of the compensation.
In the instant case, it is seen that the petitioners in their respective writ petitions have claimed compensation on the basis of their rights over the lands which have been acquired, more particularly Dag Nos.497, 498, 499 and 500. This aspect cannot be decided by this Court. The Competent Authority though had been empowered to decide the same in terms with Section 3H(3) of the Act of 1956, but when such disputes are of complex nature, it is the requirement of law for the Competent Authority to refer the dispute to the learned District Judge, Cachar at Silchar for a decision on the question of entitlement and/or apportionment of the compensation in terms with Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956.
Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the following observations and directions:-
The Additional District Commissioner (Revenue), Land Acquisition who is the Competent Authority, upon receipt of the certified copy of this judgment refer the dispute to the learned District Judge, Cachar forthwith and not later than 30 days.
This Court directs the Additional District Commissioner (Revenue), Land Acquisition, Cachar to also disburse the amount of compensation to the Court of the learned District Judge, Cachar at Silchar immediately upon the reference being made so that the said amount can be disbursed by the Court of the learned District Judge, Cachar at Silchar upon adjudication of the proceedings under Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956.
The learned District Judge, Cachar at Silchar upon receipt of the reference decide the reference in accordance with law and taking into consideration the observation of the Supreme Court referred to in the instant judgment.
No costs.
Interim orders stand vacated.