Under Section 3H, compensation must be disbursed unless complex entitlement disputes require civil-court reference.

The petitioners challenged the non-release of compensation for land covered by various dag and patta numbers situated at Village Borpara, Boko Revenue Circle, Kamrup, Assam, and also challenged the notice dated 9 June 2026 directing them to vacate the acquired land

The petitioners contended that there was no dispute regarding their entitlement to, or apportionment of, the compensation and that the Competent Authority of Land Acquisition was therefore required to disburse the amount

The respondents submitted that the compensation amount had already been disbursed/deposited with the Competent Authority pursuant to Section 3H(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956

The Court noted that, following issuance of the notification under Section 3D of the Act, the acquired land had vested in the Central Government

1. Whether the petitioners could resist the direction to vacate the acquired land on the ground that compensation had not yet been released

2. Whether the Competent Authority was required to disburse the compensation where there was no complex dispute regarding entitlement or apportionment, and what procedure applied if such a dispute existed

The Court applied Sections 3D and 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956. Upon issuance of a notification under Section 3D, the acquired land vests in the Central Government, and non-payment of compensation does not ordinarily justify refusal to vacate the land

Under Section 3H(1), the Central Government must deposit the amount determined under Section 3G with the Competent Authority; under Section 3H(2), the Competent Authority must pay the amount to the persons entitled; and under Section 3H(3), it must determine the persons entitled and their respective shares where several persons claim an interest

Under Section 3H(4), disputes concerning the person to whom compensation is payable or its apportionment must be referred to the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Relying on K. Venkataswamy v. Gowramma, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1487, the Court held that the Section 3H(4) Reference Court may incidentally determine questions of title insofar as necessary to decide entitlement to compensation

Where no complex dispute exists, the Competent Authority may itself resolve the matter and disburse the compensation

The Court held that vesting under Section 3D was legally distinct from payment of compensation. Since the land had vested in the Central Government, the alleged delay or non-release of compensation did not invalidate the direction to vacate or entitle the petitioners to retain possession

However, the deposit of compensation under Section 3H(1) triggered the Competent Authority’s statutory duty to disburse the amount. The Court distinguished ordinary disputes, which the Competent Authority could resolve under Section 3H(3), from complex disputes concerning entitlement or apportionment, which had to be referred under Section 3H(4) to the District Judge, who could also determine incidental title questions in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in K. Venkataswamy

The Competent Authority was directed to forthwith disburse the compensation if no complex dispute concerning entitlement or apportionment existed

If such a complex dispute existed, the Authority was directed to refer it to the District Judge, Kamrup (R), within 15 days of service of the certified judgment and to deposit the compensation amount with that court for determination and disbursement to the persons legally entitled

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, and the interim order was vacated