Section 76 apportionment proceedings require a claimant to demonstrate a subsisting right or interest in acquired land.

The petitioners, claiming to be heirs and legal representatives of Late Okhaben Manchand, asserted that their predecessor, Late Manchand Virchand Modi, was the owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 707 (old Survey Nos. 821, 823 and 828) at Village Khimana (Palodar), Taluka Kankrej, District Banaskantha.

They alleged that a fraudulent sale deed dated 25 May 1999, Document No. 428/1999, had been executed by the heirs of Shah Narottamdas Kalidas in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, and that their names were thereafter mutated in the revenue records.

The petitioners instituted Civil Suit No. 8 of 2024 before the Principal Civil Judge, Shihori, seeking cancellation of the sale deed and a permanent injunction.

During acquisition proceedings for the Bharatmala Project, compensation exceeding Rs. 2 crores was awarded in respect of the land, with Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shown as interested parties on the basis of the revenue entry.

The petitioners submitted an application dated 13 June 2026 under Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“LARR Act”), seeking withholding of compensation and reference of the apportionment dispute to the competent judicial authority.

As no decision was taken on the application, they approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the High Court could direct the acquisition authority to withhold compensation payable to Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and refer the dispute under Section 76 of the LARR Act when the petitioners had not established any prima facie right, title or interest in the acquired land.

2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to writ relief concerning compensation when their claim to title was already the subject matter of a pending civil suit for cancellation of the sale deed.

3. Whether the pending civil suit could be affected by the High Court’s decision in the writ petition.

The Court applied the principle that mutation entries in revenue records do not by themselves create, confer or extinguish title, while the substantive validity of a registered sale deed and competing claims of ownership must ordinarily be adjudicated by the competent civil court.

Section 76 of the LARR Act, 2013 was considered in the context of a dispute regarding apportionment of compensation; such a reference presupposes that the person claiming compensation has an identifiable right or interest in the acquired property.

The Court also applied the principle that disputed questions concerning title, fraud and cancellation of a sale deed are to be established in civil proceedings and cannot be conclusively determined in the present writ petition.

The Court found that the petitioners had not produced the alleged sale deed or documentary material establishing the link between the heirs of Shah Narottamdas Kalidas, who executed the 1999 sale deed, and Late Manchand Virchand Modi, their claimed predecessor-in-interest.

The Court further noted the absence of clarity regarding when the petitioners acquired knowledge of the sale deed and why the civil suit was instituted only in 2024.

In view of the sale deed in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the absence of any demonstrated subsisting title or interest of the petitioners on the date of acquisition, the Court held that the question of apportionment under Section 76 did not arise on the material placed before it.

The petitioners’ allegations of fraud and their claim to ownership were left to be determined in the pending civil suit.

The petitioners were permitted to pursue Civil Suit No. 8 of 2024, which was directed to proceed in accordance with law and without being influenced by the observations in the writ judgment.

A copy of the order was directed to be served on the competent authority for appropriate action in the Section 76 proceedings initiated by the petitioners.