AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.N. Bhandari, J.—By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 07.08.2007 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Behror as he was otherwise a Competent Authority.
It is a case where land was acquired under the provision of National Highways Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956"). After passing of the award, a dispute regarding apportionment of compensation came and accordingly, Petitioner made an application for reference of the matter to the competent Civil Court pursuant to the provision of Section 3H of the Act of 1956. Aforesaid application has been dismissed on the ground that after passing of award, the Respondent authority has no jurisdiction to pass any order.
Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that question of apportionment of compensation comes only on passing of the award, thus the very reason given by the Respondent authority becomes erroneous. This goes against the provision of Section 3H of the Act of 1956. Looking to the aforesaid, impugned order may be set aside with the direction to the Respondents to send the matter to the competent Civil Court.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondents made an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that while the application was filed before the competent authority, many Respondents were impleaded, however, writ petition has been filed against National Highways Authority as well as the Competent Authority only.
So far as the reference of the dispute pursuant to Section 3H of the Act of 1956 is concerned, no objection has been made by the learned Counsel as it is not otherwise effecting their rights. They are already in possession of land after acquisition and compensation has already been deposited.
I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for parties.
Since only objection raised by the Respondents is regarding maintainability, I have considered the aforesaid issue only.
The challenge in the writ petition is to the order of competent authority denying reference of the dispute pursuant to Section 3H of the Act of 1956, thus in my opinion, nobody else is necessary party other than the competent authority and National Highways Authority, who are already party Respondents.
So far as the question of reference u/s 3H of the Act of 1956 to settle the dispute for apportionment of compensation between the private parties is concerned, the contest has not been made by the Respondents, accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order dated 07.08.2007, the Authority concerned is directed to send the matter to the Competent Civil Court to settle the dispute regarding apportionment of compensation.
With the aforesaid, present writ petition stands disposed of so as the stay petition.