### Revenue Entries Cannot Solely Determine Title in Reference Disputes Under National Highways Act Summary: The High Court held that while the Collector must rely on revenue records for administrative assessment, mutation entries do not conclusively prove title. However, a reference under Section 3H of the National Highways Act is reserved for recognized "persons interested." Since the appellants failed to establish a prima facie interest during acquisition and their predecessor-in-interest long acquiesced to the existing revenue entries, the Collector was not obligated to withhold compensation or refer the matter to a Civil Court. Nonetheless, to protect the appellants' pending civil claims, the court ordered that disbursement of compensation to the recorded owner be subject to a bank guarantee.

Following Ganie’s death, the entire estate (40 Kanals, 17 Marlas) was mutated in favor of Respondent No. 5 in 1954 (Mutation No. 1066) on the grounds of her being a Khananeshin daughter and an alleged Will

The appellants challenged this mutation in 2024, alleging fraud and seeking a share under personal law

Approximately 6 Kanals of the land were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956

The Collector, Land Acquisition, rejected the appellants' application to withhold compensation or refer the matter to a Civil Court under Section 3H, noting the appellants were not reflected as owners/tenants in revenue records

The Writ Court dismissed the appellants' challenge, prompting this Letters Patent Appeal

1. Whether the Competent Authority was under a statutory obligation, per Sections 3G and 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, to withhold compensation and refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court upon the existence of rival claims?

2. Whether the rejection of the reference application solely on the ground that the appellants were not reflected in revenue records as owners or tenants is legally sustainable?

The Court relied on Section 3G and 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, which are analogous to Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act

The principle that a Collector’s award is an administrative offer and the Collector lacks jurisdiction to decide complicated questions of title

While revenue entries (fiscal in nature) do not create title, the Collector must proceed based on official records to identify "persons interested"

Reference jurisdiction is limited to the matters specifically referred and cannot be widened to adjudicate pre-existing title disputes

The Court reasoned that the Collector was justified in treating Respondent No. 5 as the sole "person interested" because she had been the recorded owner in possession since 1954

The appellants' challenge to the mutation was filed decades late, and they provided no prima facie evidence of possession or recognized interest at the time of acquisition

Section 3H of the Act pertains to disputes regarding apportionment among recognized "interested persons" and does not empower a Collector to resolve deep-seated title disputes or pre-existing proprietary rights belonging to parties not on record

Since the appellants had already instituted a civil suit for declaration of title, that forum is the appropriate venue for adjudication, rather than an acquisition reference

The appeal was dismissed, and the Writ Court's judgment was upheld, but directed that Respondent No. 5 may receive the compensation subject to furnishing a bank guarantee for one-half of the amount before the competent Civil Court as security