Section 3(H)(4) references under the National Highways Act must be adjudicated on merits and cannot be withdrawn.

The Petitioners and Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5 were involved in a dispute regarding the apportionment of land acquisition compensation awarded under Section 3(G) of the National Highways Act, 1956, in LA Case No. 12 of 2021

Consequently, the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA)-cum-Tahasildar referred the matter to the Principal Civil Court-cum-District Judge, Deogarh, for adjudication under Section 3(H)(4) of the Act, registered as LA Reference Case No. 5 of 2022

On 17.05.2023, the District Judge allowed the withdrawal of the reference based on a memo filed by the CALA, without hearing the parties or deciding the matter on merits

Subsequently, the CALA issued an order on 02.12.2025, directing the parties to produce a stay order from a court within 30 days, failing which compensation would be disbursed according to the Record of Rights (ROR)

The Petitioners challenged these orders via this writ petition

Section 3(H)(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which mandates that if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount of compensation or any part thereof, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction

the principle of judicial exercise of jurisdiction, which requires that once a statutory reference is made to a court for the purpose of answering a dispute, that court is duty-bound to adjudicate the matter on its merits rather than permitting a summary withdrawal by the referring administrative authority

The High Court observed that the learned District Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law

The court noted that once a matter is formally referred under Section 3(H)(4) of the Act, the Civil Court is required to provide an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and resolve the dispute on its merits

The District Judge’s decision to allow the withdrawal of the reference solely on the basis of a memo filed by the CALA’s counsel was deemed "per se illegal"

Consequently, the court found that the CALA’s subsequent order dated 02.12.2025—which sought to disburse compensation based on ROR entries due to the absence of a stay order—was also invalid, as the statutory reference intended to resolve the underlying apportionment dispute had never been properly adjudicated

The court held that a statutory reference under the Act must be adjudicated on merits

The District Judge-cum-Principal Civil Court, Deogarh, was directed to restore LA Reference Case No. 5 of 2022 to its file and adjudicate the same after providing a hearing to all parties concerned

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs