Case Note & Summary
This writ petition before the Bombay High Court arose out of a land acquisition compensation dispute under the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioners, four siblings, claimed ownership of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 1178 at village Barad, Taluka Phaltan, District Satara, admeasuring 1286 square meters, on which they had constructed a house. They contended that their father purchased the property on 30 October 1986 and their names appeared in revenue records. Rival claimants, respondents 5 and 6, also asserted rights over the same property, leading to revenue and civil proceedings, including Regular Civil Suit No. 59 of 2022 for declaration and injunction. The land was acquired for national highway purposes by the National Highways Authority of India. Both the petitioners and respondents 5 and 6 laid claim to compensation. The competent authority, Mr Satish Dhumal, by order dated 25 April 2022, not only determined entitlement but also decided the apportionment dispute and directed payment of over Rs 1 Crore to respondents 5 and 6. The amount of Rs 1,00,21,122 was disbursed to respondents 5 and 6 on 4 May 2022, the same day the petitioners filed the writ petition. The petitioners obtained interim relief on 6 May 2022, but by then the amount had already been withdrawn by respondents 5 and 6 on 5 May 2022. Mr Dhumal claimed he was unaware of the petition until 5 May 2022 and that he subsequently attempted to freeze the bank accounts and had taken an undertaking from respondents 5 and 6 to return the amount if required. The core legal issue was whether the competent authority had jurisdiction to decide an apportionment dispute under Section 3H(3) and Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioners argued that the authority had usurped jurisdiction not vested in it and that the dispute should have been referred to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Mr Dhumal, through counsel, admitted an error of law but pleaded bona fides, citing lack of notice and subsequent efforts to freeze the amount. He also referred to a Government Resolution dated 18 November 2022, which required a four-week waiting period before disbursement. The court noted that this GR was issued after the impugned disbursement and could not assist the authority. The court analysed Section 3H(3) and 3H(4) and held that the provisions must be harmoniously construed. Under Section 3H(3), the competent authority determines persons entitled to compensation, but under Section 3H(4), if any dispute arises as to apportionment, the competent authority is bound to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The court relied on multiple precedents of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, including Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate, Mau, which drew a fine distinction between determining the amount and apportioning it. The court rejected Mr Dhumal's defence that he was unaware of the legal position, observing that the statutory provisions were clear and binding precedents existed. It also held that the Government Resolution could not override the statutory mandate. In the result, the court ruled that the competent authority acted without jurisdiction in deciding the apportionment dispute and disbursing compensation to respondents 5 and 6. The dispute was required to be referred to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and the compensation amount deposited with that court to abide by its decision. The court's decision favoured the petitioners on the jurisdictional question.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Apportionment of Compensation - Section 3H(3) and 3H(4) National Highways Act, 1956 - Competent Authority's Jurisdiction - The competent authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 has no power to decide an apportionment dispute among rival claimants; it must determine only persons entitled under Section 3H(3) and refer any apportionment dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under Section 3H(4) - In the present case, the competent authority passed an order dated 25 April 2022 apportioning compensation and disbursing over Rs 1 Crore to one set of claimants despite rival claims. Held that the authority acted without jurisdiction and the dispute was required to be referred to the civil court (Paras 13-14, 18). B) Land Acquisition - Harmonious Construction - Sections 3H(3) and 3H(4) National Highways Act, 1956 - Statutory Interpretation - The provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 3H must be harmoniously construed; if any dispute regarding apportionment exists, the competent authority has no right, authority or jurisdiction to decide the dispute or disburse compensation in favour of any one disputing party - The court applied this principle to hold that the competent authority's action was in violation of the statutory scheme (Paras 13-14). C) Land Acquisition - Precedents on Apportionment - National Highways Act, 1956 - Several decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court were cited to emphasise that the competent authority must refer apportionment disputes to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction - Cases included Arun s/o Trimbakrao Lokare v. State of Maharashtra, 2017(6) Mh.L.J. 612; Rajaram Waman Rane v. Ramkrishna Mahadev Rane, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 6437; Pandurang Balu Pujare v. Competent Authority, WP/10577/2024; Shriram R. Deshprabhu v. State of Goa, 2023(2) ALL MR 72; Ashok More v. Union of India, 2017(2) ALL MR 792; and Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate, Mau, 2023 SCC OnLine 787 - The court noted these precedents were binding and could not be ignored by the competent authority (Paras 15-16, 19). D) Administrative Law - Government Resolution vs Statutory Mandate - Government Resolution dated 18 November 2022 - A Government Resolution cannot override clear statutory provisions under Section 3H(3) and 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956; even the GR required no disbursement for four weeks and intimation to parties - The competent authority Mr Satish Dhumal claimed the GR was issued later and not applicable, but the court rejected this defence as unacceptable because the NHA provisions were clear and the authority could not claim ignorance of precedents (Paras 16-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the competent authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 had jurisdiction to decide an apportionment dispute between rival claimants under Section 3H(3) and Section 3H(4), and whether such dispute was required to be referred to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction with the compensation amount deposited with that court.
Final Decision
The court held that under Sections 3H(3) and 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the competent authority has no jurisdiction to decide an apportionment dispute; such dispute must be referred to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and the compensation deposited with that court. The court found that the competent authority acted without jurisdiction in passing order dated 25 April 2022 and disbursing compensation to Respondents 5 and 6. The court also noted that the Government Resolution dated 18 November 2022 could not override statutory provisions, and that the competent authority could not rely on ignorance of precedents.
Law Points
- Section 3H(3) of National Highways Act
- 1956 empowers competent authority to determine persons entitled to compensation
- Section 3H(4) mandates that any dispute as to apportionment must be referred to Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction
- competent authority has no jurisdiction to decide apportionment dispute
- sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 3H must be harmoniously construed
- Government Resolution cannot override statutory provisions
- compensation amount must be deposited with reference court
- competent authority cannot rush to disburse compensation without reference
