Complex title disputes over National Highways compensation must be referred to the principal civil court under Section 3H(4).

The petitioners in WP(C) No. 1404/2025 and the petitioners in the connected WP(C) No. 262/2025 asserted competing rights to compensation for land acquired under Dag Nos. 497, 498, 499 and 500 of Rongpur Part-I, Cachar, for construction of a four-lane highway from Silchar to Jiribam under the Bharatmala Project.

Pursuant to a notification dated 6 March 2024 issued under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, specified portions of the four dags were acquired.

Awards under Section 3G recorded different members of the rival claimant groups as beneficiaries, but none had submitted a claim for receiving the compensation.

The High Court was therefore required to determine the appropriate statutory forum and procedure for adjudicating the rival claims to entitlement and apportionment of compensation.

Whether the High Court could itself determine the rival claimants’ entitlement to compensation based on their competing rights over the acquired lands.

Whether the Competent Authority under Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 was required to refer the dispute concerning entitlement and/or apportionment of compensation to the principal civil court under Section 3H(4).

Whether the compensation amount should be deposited before the District Judge, Cachar, for disbursement after adjudication of the reference.

The Court applied Sections 3G and 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956. Section 3G provides for determination of the compensation payable for acquisition, while Section 3H(2) requires payment to the person or persons entitled to receive it; under Section 3H(3), the Competent Authority may determine the persons entitled and their respective shares.

However, where a dispute arises regarding apportionment or the person to whom compensation is payable, Section 3H(4) mandates reference to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction.

Relying on K. Venkataswamy v. Gowramma, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1487, the Court held that the Section 3H(4) reference court has jurisdiction to incidentally decide questions of title insofar as necessary to determine entitlement to compensation.

Where the rival claims involve complex questions of title, the Competent Authority must refer the dispute to the principal civil court rather than decide it administratively.

The rival petitioners claimed compensation on the basis of competing rights over the same acquired lands comprised in Dag Nos. 497–500.

Although Section 3H(3) permits the Competent Authority to determine entitlement and apportionment in appropriate cases, the competing claims in the present matter raised issues concerning the underlying rights and title to the acquired property.

Applying the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 3H(4), the High Court held that such complex disputes could not be conclusively adjudicated in the writ proceedings and were required to be determined by the principal civil court, which could incidentally examine title for deciding entitlement and apportionment.

To preserve the compensation pending adjudication, the amount was directed to be transferred to the District Judge, Cachar.

The Competent Authority was further directed to disburse the compensation amount to the Court of the District Judge immediately upon making the reference, for release after adjudication under Section 3H(4).

The District Judge was directed to decide the reference in accordance with law and in light of K. Venkataswamy.

No costs were awarded, and all interim orders were vacated.