Bharati Kalita vs The State Of Assam And Othrs

Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010135572026

2026:GAU-AS:12466
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3510/2026
BHARATI KALITA
WIFE OF LATE PARAMA KALITA,
VILLAGE BORPARA ,
PO AND PS BOKO,
DISTRICT-KAMRUP, ASSAM
2: MANOJ KALITA
SON OF LATE PARAMA KALITAVILLAGE BORPARA PO AND PS
BOKODISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM
3: PANKAJ KALITA
SON OF LATE PARAMA KALITAVILLAGE BORPARA PO AND PS
BOKODISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM
4: MIKUL KALITA
SON OF LATE PARAMA KALITAVILLAGE BORPARA PO AND PS
BOKODISTRICT KAMRUP ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT
DISPUR GUWAHATI 6
2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP
AMINGAON ASSAM
3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP
AMINGAON ASSA

Page No.# 2/9

BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. P. Choudhury, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. C. Baruah, Standing Counsel
: Mr. N. Das, Government Advocate
: Ms. G. Hazarika, Standing Counsel


· Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A
· Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 28.08.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
·
the Operative Part of the Judgment : Yes

· Whether the full Judgment has been
Pronounced : No
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

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.
2. 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

Page No.# 3/9
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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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

Page No.# 4/9
Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’).
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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

Page No.# 5/9
compensation.
9. 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

Page No.# 6/9
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

Page No.# 7/9
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.”
10. 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.

Page No.# 8/9
11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with
the following observations and directions:
(i) The challenge to the notice dated 09.06.2026 issued by the
Respondent No.4 is rejected for the reasons aforementioned.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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.

Page No.# 9/9
(iv) Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
Digitally signed by
Bijoy Saha
Date: 2026.08.29
17:36:56 +05'30'

Bijoy Saha
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant