Complex disputes over compensation entitlement or apportionment under Section 3H(4) must be referred to the principal civil court.

The petitioner claimed ownership of 0.0268 hectares of land at Nahorjan, Mouza-Borjan, Karbi Anglong, covered by Dag No. 70 and Periodic Khiraj Patta No. 30.

In a notification dated 24 March 2022 issued under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, Respondent No. 10’s name was recorded against Dag No. 70, although the petitioner alleged that the entry related to her land and incorrectly mentioned Patta No. 70 instead of Patta No. 30.

The petitioner therefore contended that the compensation payable for the acquired land ought to be paid to her rather than Respondent No. 10.

She approached the Gauhati High Court seeking appropriate directions concerning the disputed entitlement to compensation.

Whether the dispute regarding the person entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land could be determined by the Competent Authority under Section 3H(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956, or required reference to the principal civil court under Section 3H(4).

Whether the Competent Authority was required to refer the competing claims of the petitioner and Respondent No. 10 regarding entitlement and/or apportionment of compensation to the District Judge, Karbi Anglong.

Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 governs the deposit and disbursement of compensation. Under Section 3H(2), the Competent Authority must pay compensation to the person or persons entitled to it; under Section 3H(3), it may determine the persons entitled to receive compensation where several persons claim an interest; and under Section 3H(4), any dispute regarding apportionment or the person to whom compensation is payable must be referred to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction.

Relying on K. Venkataswamy v. Gowramma, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1487, the Court held that where entitlement involves a complex dispute requiring examination of competing title claims, the Competent Authority cannot finally decide the matter. The reference court has jurisdiction to incidentally determine questions of title insofar as necessary to decide entitlement to or apportionment of compensation.

The petitioner and Respondent No. 10 asserted competing claims over the land described in Serial No. 173 of the acquisition notification. Although Section 3H(3) permits the Competent Authority to determine the persons entitled to compensation, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 3H(4) requires referral where entitlement depends upon adjudication of complex questions of title.

Since resolution of the dispute required determining whether the acquired land corresponded to the petitioner’s Dag No. 70 under Periodic Patta No. 30 or to Respondent No. 10’s recorded interest, the matter could not be conclusively resolved administratively. The appropriate forum was therefore the principal civil court, namely the District Judge, Karbi Anglong.

The District Judge was directed to decide whether the petitioner or Respondent No. 10 was entitled to the compensation, in accordance with K. Venkataswamy. Any compensation already disbursed was made subject to the outcome of the reference proceedings.