A Section 20H(4) reference is unnecessary absent prima facie proof of entitlement to compensation.

The petitioner and respondent No. 4, his brother, were co-owners of land acquired for a railway project.

Compensation for the land was equally apportioned between them, but compensation for trees, fencing, cement poles, and other structures on the land was awarded to respondent No. 4 under a corrigendum award dated 18 April 2023.

In an earlier writ petition, the corrigendum award was quashed for violation of natural justice and the matter was remanded to the competent authority for hearing both co-owners and passing a reasoned order.

On remand, the competent authority, by order dated 20 March 2026, again directed payment of compensation for the trees and structures to respondent No. 4, finding that he had exclusively cultivated and managed the land, planted and maintained the trees, and incurred the expenses for the fencing and structures.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending that the authority had ignored his evidence and that any dispute regarding apportionment was required to be referred to the Civil Court under Section 20H(4) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the competent authority erred in awarding compensation for the trees and structures exclusively to respondent No. 4 despite the parties being co-owners and despite the petitioner’s claim to an equal share?

Whether the dispute regarding entitlement or apportionment of compensation was required to be referred to the Principal Civil Court under Section 20H(4) of the Railways Act, 1989?

Section 20H(4) of the Railways Act, 1989 requires reference to the Principal Civil Court where a dispute arises regarding the apportionment of compensation; the Court held that such reference is warranted where the dispute involves intricate questions of fact requiring adjudication on evidence.

The Court also applied the principle that, in judicial review, it would not interfere with a reasoned factual determination of the competent authority when the finding is supported by material on record and no contrary evidence establishes the petitioner’s claimed entitlement.

The earlier remand order required the authority to provide both parties an opportunity of hearing and to pass a reasoned and speaking order after evaluating their evidence.

The Court found that the remand directions had been complied with because both parties were heard and their evidence was considered.

The competent authority relied on respondent No. 4’s revenue receipts, electricity bills, produce-sale bills, fertilizer bills, and other material to conclude that he had remained in possession, cultivated the land, planted and maintained the trees, and erected the structures at his own expense.

Conversely, the petitioner, who had been residing and working as a teacher at Nadiad for several decades, produced no evidence of physical or financial involvement in the cultivation, maintenance of the trees, or construction of the structures.

Since the petitioner failed to establish even a prima facie right to compensation for those items, the Court held that the matter did not involve an unresolved or intricate apportionment dispute requiring reference under Section 20H(4).

The equal distribution of compensation for the land itself was undisputed; the dispute was confined to compensation for improvements attributable to respondent No. 4.

It upheld the award of compensation for the trees and structures exclusively to respondent No. 4, holding that the petitioner had not established any entitlement to that compensation and that no reference to the Civil Court under Section 20H(4) was necessary.

The Court made no order as to costs.