Disputes over National Highway compensation apportionment must be determined by the competent authority under Section 3H(4).

The petitioner claimed payment of compensation for land acquired for the “Saragaon to Urga Road Widening Project” and the “Champa-Korba-Chhuri-Katghora Road Widening Project,” for which awards had allegedly already been passed.

During the proceedings, it emerged that there was a dispute among the concerned parties regarding apportionment of the compensation amount payable in respect of the acquired land.

The petitioner therefore sought liberty to approach the competent authority under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, for determination of the respective entitlement of the parties.

The respondents and the intervenor stated that they had no objection to this course.

The Court applied Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which empowers the competent authority to determine disputes concerning the apportionment of compensation payable for land acquired under the Act.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice by directing that all concerned parties, including the intervenor, be afforded a due and reasonable opportunity of hearing before the matter is decided.

The Court recognised that the dispute was not merely about release of compensation but principally concerned the apportionment of the compensation amount among competing claimants.

Since Section 3H(4) provides the appropriate statutory mechanism for determining the respective entitlements, and the respondents and intervenor had no objection to the petitioner pursuing that remedy, the Court considered it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the competent authority.

The Court preserved the parties’ rights by requiring an independent determination on merits, in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties.

Upon receipt, the competent authority was directed to consider and decide the application, after granting a due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, including the intervenor, and to make all endeavour to take a final decision within 90 days from receipt of the application and a copy of the order.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the parties’ competing claims, which were to be decided independently by the competent authority.