AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode.
The present petition challenges the order dated 6th November, 2017 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Opposite Party No.3)
referring the question of disbursement of compensation to the Principal Civil Court under Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH
Act).
This Court has heard Mr.Gourimohan Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Ms.Nitu Roy, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 1 to 3.
The background facts of the case are that Hal Settlement Plot No.1225 under Khata No.274 measuring Ac.2.11 dec. in Mouza-Gopalpur, Cuttack
(‘the property in question’) was jointly recorded in the names of the four sons of one Shri Gandharb Behera. Petitioner No.21, Shri Babaji
Behera is one of those sons. The other twenty Petitioners are the legal representatives of the other three brothers.
The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) (Opposite Party No.1) issued a notification under Section 3A of the NH Act for acquiring a
portion of the aforesaid Plot No.1225 for expansion of NH-5. According to the Petitioners, the notification states that an Ac.0.350 dec. out of Plot
No.1225 has been proposed to be acquired.
After the assessment of compensation, the amount was not disbursed, so the Petitioners issued a notice to Opposite Party No.3 seeking release of
compensation amount. According to the Petitioners, when they inquired, it transpired that the private Respondents 5 to 10 have raised an objection on
the ground of pending litigation with the Petitioners.
It is stated that Opposite Parties 5 to 10 instituted two suits, viz., Civil Suit No.138 of 2008 and Civil Suit No.23 of 2012 in the Court of the Civil
Judge (Sr.Division), Cuttack . According to them, the predecessor-in-interest of one Shri Biswanath Nayak was the transferree of a portion of Sabik
Plot No.886 measuring Ac.3.54 dec. out of total area of Ac.3.74 dec. They claimed that the vendors of Shri Biswanath Nayak had made some prior
transfer from the said sabik Plot No.886 to an extent of Ac.0.68 dec. and executed a deal in favour of Shri Biswanath Nayak for the balance area
Ac.3.06 dec. This according to Opposite Parties 5 to 10 was recorded as Ac.2.71 dec. under Hal Settlement Plot No.1858 under Khata No.443
instead of being recorded as Ac.3.06 dec.
Incidentally, the Petitioners claim that the four sons of Shri Gandharba Behera purchased the plot in question from Shri Biswanath Nayak by four
registered sales deed on 18th June, 1975. It is submitted out by Mr.Rath that even as per the version of the Opposite Parties 5 to 10, their claim to
surplus land is confined to Ac.0.35 dec which forms part of the property in question.
The grievance of the Petitioners is that when the dispute raised by Opposite Party Nos.5 to 10 is confined to the extent of only Ac.0.35 dec., there
is no justification in referring the issue of disbursal of compensation in respect of the entire extent of land under Section 3H (4) of the NH Act.
Mr.Rath points out that pursuant to the impugned order, Opposite Party No.3 filed N.H. Reference Misc.Case No.2 of 2018 in the Court of the
District Judge, Cuttack and the said case is still pending in that Court.
A copy of the reference petition is enclosed as Annexure-R/C to the affidavit filed by Opposite Party No.3 on behalf of Opposite Parties 1 to 3. In
para-8 of the said petition, it is stated that the amount determined to be payable as compensation under Section 3G of the NH Act has been deposited
with the Opposite Party No.3-Central Government under Section 3H(1) of the NH Act and can be disbursed pursuant to the decision of the District
Judge in the above reference case.
From the reply of Opposite Parties 1 to 3, it emerges that of the two suits filed Opposite Parties 5 to 10 i.e., C.S.No.23 of 2012 stood dismissed for
default on 24th November, 2014 and the Restoration Petition i.e. CMA No.342 of 2014 had been filed. Mr.Rath informs the Court that even this
application has been dismissed for default. As regards to other suit, C.S.No.138 of 2008 neither counsel has information about its present status.
Mr. Rath repeatedly urged that reference should be permitted only to the extent of the disputed portion of Ac.0.35 dec.of land and that further
corresponding to the plot in question the claim is only to the extent of Ac.0.13 dec. and, therefore the compensation pertaining to remaining portions
should be released to the Petitioners.
The Court finds that the language of Section 3H (4) of the NH Act is mandatory in nature. 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 the state the competent authority “shall refer the
dispute†the decision of the principal civil court of its original jurisdiction.
Consequently, there is no option with the Opposite Party No.3 to refer the dispute to the Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of NH Act.
Consequently, the Court is not persuaded to interfere with the said order already noticed pursuant to the impugned order, the reference has filed and is
pending before the Distirct Judge.
However, the Court directs that the said pending N.H.Reference Misc.Case No.02 of 2018 under Section 3H(4) of the NH Act will be disposed
of by the learned District Judge as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than six months from today. The downloaded copy of this order
be produced by Opposite Party No.3 before the learned District Judge. All parties will co-operate with the learned District Judge and not seek any
unnecessary adjournments.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order
available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide
Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15th April, 2021..
…………………………