Competent Authority under National Highways Act must refer apportionment disputes to the Principal Civil Court.

The petitioners and respondent nos. 1 to 5 are descendants of a common ancestor, Abdul Hakeem

Land belonging to the family was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956

A dispute arose regarding the apportionment of compensation; petitioners claimed a 3/4th share based on an alleged oral gift (Hiba) made by their late uncle, Alauddin, while respondents claimed a moiety (1/2 share) based on standard devolution

On April 23, 2012, the Additional District Magistrate (ADM/Competent Authority) passed an order apportioning the compensation equally (50-50) between the two branches

The petitioners challenged this, arguing the Competent Authority exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding a contentious title dispute

1. Whether the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956, has the jurisdiction to decide a contentious dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation involving complex questions of personal law and title

2. Whether such a dispute must be referred to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under Section 3H(4) of the Act

Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, specifically distinguishing between Sub-section (3), which allows the competent authority to determine entitlement in non-contentious matters, and Sub-section (4), which mandates a reference to the Principal Civil Court when a "dispute" arises as to apportionment

The Supreme Court precedent Vinod Kumar and others v. District Magistrate, Mau and others (AIR 2023 SC 3337), which established that the "summary power" of the competent authority does not extend to resolving triable civil disputes

Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956, concerning the validity of oral gifts of agricultural land

The Court reasoned that while Section 3H(3) empowers the Competent Authority to distribute compensation where shares are settled and non-contentious, it cannot adjudicate a "full-fledged lis"

In this case, the parties propounded different shares based on competing interpretations of Muslim Personal Law (oral gift) versus statutory land reforms

The Court observed that because the parties' entitlement was based on past transactions and complex legal principles, it constituted a "dispute" within the meaning of Section 3H(4)

Applying the Vinod Kumar doctrine, the Court held that once a serious contention of fact and law arises, the Competent Authority's jurisdiction is limited to referring the matter to the District Judge (the Principal Civil Court), as the authority lacks the legal machinery to resolve issues triable by a Civil Court

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated April 23, 2012. It directed the Competent Authority/ADM Bulandshahr to forthwith refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for adjudication

The Court also allowed applications for delay condonation and substitution of the deceased respondents' legal heirs