Article 226 cannot be invoked to circumvent a civil court’s order restraining disbursement of compensation.

The petitioners claimed ownership of 16 Kathas and 15 Chataks of land covered by Dag No. 293, Patta No. 288, Mouza Lakarkhai, Sribhumi Revenue Circle. An area measuring 0.0856 hectare was acquired by the Central Government under the National Highways Act, 1956, for the Bharat Mala Project, and vested in the Central Government under Section 3D(2). Compensation of ₹81,11,372 was determined, comprising the value of the acquired land, solatium, additional market value, zirat/agricultural value, forest value and structure value.

Although the Land Acquisition Collector recognised the petitioners’ title and called upon them to complete the formalities for receiving compensation, the Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 3, Sribhumi, by order dated 28 February 2025 in Petition No. 363/27 arising from Title Suit No. 105/2017, directed the District Commissioner not to disburse any compensation relating to the disputed land to any person until further orders.

The petitioners approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking release of the zirat component of the compensation, contending that it could be separated from the total amount.

Whether the High Court could, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, direct release of the zirat component of compensation despite the civil court’s order restraining disbursement of the entire compensation relating to the disputed land.

Whether the civil court’s judicial order dated 28 February 2025 could be interfered with or effectively modified through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The acquisition was undertaken under the National Highways Act, 1956, including Section 3D(2), under which land acquired pursuant to the statutory notification vests absolutely in the Central Government free from encumbrances.

The Court applied the principle that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, while jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct, as settled by the three-Judge Bench decision in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423.

The Court also referred to Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1, and noted that the contrary view in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675, had been disapproved in relation to interference with civil-court judicial orders.

The operative civil-court order restrained disbursement of the compensation amount pertaining to Dag No. 293 and Patta No. 288 until further orders.

The compensation of ₹81,11,372 was a composite amount, and the zirat compensation formed an integral part of it rather than an independent payment capable of being released without affecting the disputed compensation.

The land covered by the civil suit was the same land acquired for the highway project, and the civil court had expressly restrained disbursement of compensation relating to that land to any person.

Granting the petitioners’ request would therefore require the High Court to carve out and release a portion of the amount covered by the civil court’s order, thereby interfering with or modifying a judicial order of a civil court.

Such interference was impermissible in a petition under Article 226 in view of Radhey Shyam.

The petitioners’ challenge could not succeed merely because the requested relief was limited to the zirat component.

It further held that releasing that component under Article 226 would amount to impermissible interference with a judicial order of the civil court.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and no direction for disbursement of any part of the compensation was issued.