Disputes over entitlement or apportionment of highway compensation must be referred to the Principal Civil Court.

The petitioner claimed compensation for acquisition of 0.3880 hectares of land covered by Dag No. 33 of Annual Patta No. 241, Village Karagaon, Block No. 2, Borjan Taluk, District Karbi Anglong, Assam.

His name appeared in the notification dated 22 March 2018 issued under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956.

He approached the High Court alleging inaction by the authorities in disbursing the compensation.

The Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council contended that other persons were also claiming compensation in respect of the same land and referred to directions in earlier writ petitions for adjudication under Section 3H(4) of the Act.

The Court found that the earlier orders did not identify the land in question and therefore could not be presumed to apply to the petitioner’s land.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to disbursement of compensation under Section 3H(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956, if no dispute existed regarding his entitlement or the apportionment of compensation.

2. Whether, in the event of a dispute regarding the petitioner’s entitlement or apportionment of compensation, the Competent Authority was required to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under Section 3H(4) of the Act.

The Court applied Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Under Section 3H(1), compensation deposited by the Central Government is to be dealt with by the Competent Authority; under Section 3H(3), the Competent Authority is to disburse the compensation to the entitled persons where there is no dispute regarding entitlement or apportionment; and under Section 3H(4), where such a dispute exists, the Competent Authority must refer it to the Court of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within whose jurisdiction the land is situated.

No precedent was relied upon.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s name was included in the Section 3D acquisition notification, thereby establishing a basis for his claim to compensation.

Although the respondents referred to earlier orders concerning disputes over compensation, those orders did not identify the land involved and could not be treated as governing the petitioner’s claim.

The Court therefore applied the statutory distinction under Section 3H: if no competing claim or dispute regarding entitlement or apportionment existed, Respondent No. 7 had to disburse the compensation under Section 3H(3); if such a dispute existed, the Competent Authority could not adjudicate it administratively and was required to refer it to the District Judge, Karbi Anglong, under Section 3H(4).

Respondent No. 7 was directed to disburse the compensation to the petitioner under Section 3H(3) if no dispute was raised regarding his entitlement or the apportionment of compensation.

If any such dispute existed concerning the 0.3880 hectares of land, Respondent No. 7 was directed to refer it to the Court of the District Judge, Karbi Anglong, for adjudication in accordance with law.

No costs were awarded.