CALA Must Refer Compensation Disputes to Principal Civil Court Under Section 3H(4) of National Highways Act

The Petitioner’s land (Khasra No. 164/5, Village Mokhetra) was acquired for a National Highway project, and compensation of ₹15,73,143.80 was determined in his favor via a supplementary award dated May 25, 2021.

Respondent No. 2 (CALA) stayed the disbursement on February 17, 2026, due to objections raised by Respondents No. 5 to 7 regarding a separate, unacquired parcel of land (Khasra No. 164/4).

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the stay and a Writ of Mandamus for immediate disbursement or a formal reference to a Civil Court.

Whether the Competent Authority is permitted to indefinitely withhold land acquisition compensation when a dispute regarding entitlement or apportionment arises.

Whether the Competent Authority is under a statutory obligation to refer such disputes to the Principal Civil Court under the National Highways Act, 1956.

Section 3H(4) mandates that if a dispute arises regarding the apportionment of the compensation amount or the person to whom it is payable, the Competent Authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate, Mau (2023) established that the Competent Authority cannot summarily decide complex disputes regarding entitlement and must refer such matters to a Civil Court as the law steps in to provide a specific adjudicatory forum for such triable issues.

The Court reasoned that the statutory scheme of the Act of 1956 does not permit the Competent Authority to keep such matters pending indefinitely.

By applying the principle from Vinod Kumar, the Court noted that once a dispute regarding entitlement exists, the "summary power" of the Competent Authority is insufficient, and the mandatory provisions of Section 3H(4) are triggered.

Therefore, instead of quashing the stay immediately, the Court determined that the proper legal course is for the Authority to exercise its statutory duty of reference if the dispute persists.

The Court held that if the Competent Authority finds that a bona fide dispute regarding entitlement or apportionment exists, it must expeditiously undertake proceedings to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court in accordance with Section 3H(4) of the Act.