Competent Authority must refer compensation apportionment disputes to the Principal Civil Court under Section 3H(4).

The Petitioners, claiming to be the legal representatives of Late Isheswar Borthakur, challenged the action of the Additional District Commissioner (Land Acquisition) (Respondent No. 6) regarding the disbursement of compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956

The land, measuring 1 katha 11 lechas in Dergaon, was acquired for the widening of National Highway 37

Respondent No. 6 disbursed the total compensation amount of ₹81,74,365 exclusively to Respondent Nos. 7 to 13, on the grounds that they were the Annual Patta holders in possession

The Petitioners alleged that despite appearing before the authority and submitting a representation on 13.12.2024 to claim their share, the authority failed to consider their rights or refer the dispute to a civil court

1. Whether the Competent Authority (CALA) has the jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding the entitlement or apportionment of compensation when multiple parties stake a claim

2. Whether the Respondent No. 6 was legally obligated to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956

The Court applied the statutory framework of the National Highways Act, 1956. Under Section 3H(3), the Competent Authority is empowered to disburse compensation only when no dispute exists regarding the entitlement

Section 3H(4) mandates that if a dispute arises as to the entitlement or the apportionment of the compensation amount, the Competent Authority "shall" refer the dispute for the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within whose limits the land is situated

The Court observed that while Respondent No. 6 proceeded under Section 3H(3) based on possession and patta status, the emergence of a claim by the Petitioners as legal heirs created a "dispute" within the meaning of the Act

The Court reasoned that the Competent Authority lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate competing claims of entitlement or to decide the apportionment of compensation; its role is limited to disbursement in undisputed cases

Once the Petitioners submitted their application and appeared before the authority, a dispute was manifest. Consequently, the Court held that instead of disbursing the full amount to one party, the authority was duty-bound by Section 3H(4) to refer the matter to the District and Sessions Judge, Golaghat

The Court ordered the authority to refer the dispute regarding entitlement and apportionment to the District and Sessions Judge, Golaghat, within 15 days of receiving the order

The Court further clarified that although the Private Respondents had already received the compensation, their entitlement to said amount remains subject to the final decision rendered by the District and Sessions Judge

No costs were awarded