Disputes over compensation entitlement under National Highways Act must be referred to Principal Civil Court.

The Appellant (Jagannath Mandal) challenged an order dated 21.01.2026 passed by a Single Judge in WPC No. 274 of 2026

The Respondent No. 7 (Mohani Vishvas) filed the writ petition alleging that land originally leased to Late Surendra Mandal was acquired by NHAI, but the Appellant had mutated the land in his name and obtained the compensation award without her knowledge

The Single Judge directed the Competent Authority (Respondent No. 6) to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and stayed disbursement of the compensation

The Appellant contended that the Competent Authority had already rejected Respondent No. 7’s objection on 20.01.2026 and that he held title via a registered will

1. Whether the Competent Authority is mandated to refer a dispute regarding the apportionment or entitlement of compensation to a Principal Civil Court under Section 3H(4) when rival claims involve questions of title

2. Whether a prior administrative rejection of an objection by the Competent Authority precludes a reference to the Civil Court under Section 3H(4)

The Court applied Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, specifically Sub-section (3), which allows the competent authority to determine prima facie entitlement, and Sub-section (4), which mandates reference to the Principal Civil Court in cases of disputes regarding apportionment or entitlement

It heavily relied on the Supreme Court precedent Vinod Kumar and Others v. District Magistrate (2023) 19 SCC 126, which established that complex disputes involving title or competing family claims cannot be finally adjudicated by administrative authorities and must be determined by a Civil Court

The Division Bench reasoned that while the Competent Authority may make a preliminary determination of entitlement for administrative purposes, it lacks the jurisdiction to resolve complex inter se title disputes

The Court observed that the Appellant’s claim was based on a registered will and mutation entries, while Respondent No. 7 asserted a competing claim; such issues involving the validity of a will and subsequent mutation are "disputed questions of title" that cannot be resolved in writ proceedings or by an administrative officer

The Court rejected the Appellant's argument that the prior rejection of the objection by the Competent Authority was final, stating that administrative determinations do not override the statutory requirement for judicial adjudication under Section 3H(4) when a genuine dispute persists

The Court concluded that the Single Judge’s direction was necessary to prevent wrongful disbursement and ensure a fair trial of rights

The High Court upheld the Single Judge’s order, holding that the impugned direction suffered from no legal or jurisdictional error

The Writ Appeal was dismissed, confirming that the compensation amount must remain undisbursed until the Principal Civil Court decides the apportionment dispute