Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Arun Trimbakrao Lokare, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 05.01.2017 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Officer, Jaikwadi Scheme), Beed, rejecting his claim for a share in compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioner claimed that his father had purchased an undivided 1/4th share in agricultural land admeasuring 5 Acres 14 Are from survey nos. 11/1 and 10/01 of village Manjarsumba, District Beed, by a sale deed dated 17.07.1979, and mutation entry No.332 dated 28.12.1980 was made in his father's name. Subsequently, a portion of 16 Are from survey No.10/1 was acquired by the State for national highway purposes. The petitioner, as a co-owner, applied to the Land Acquisition Officer for a share in the compensation. The officer called upon respondent No.4 (another co-owner) to file his say and then rejected the petitioner's claim on the ground that the petitioner's title was not established. The High Court noted that there was no dispute about the facts and the only controversy was the interpretation of Section 3-H(3) and (4) of the Act. The court held that under Section 3-H(3), the competent authority determines the amount of compensation and the persons entitled to it. However, if there is a dispute as to the apportionment of compensation or as to the persons to whom it is payable, the authority must refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 3-H(4). The officer cannot reject the claim outright; he must refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator under Section 3-H(4) of the Act. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation Apportionment - Section 3-H(3) and (4) National Highways Act, 1956 - Co-owner's Claim - The petitioner, claiming to be a co-owner of acquired land, applied for a share in compensation. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the claim holding that the petitioner's title was not proved. The High Court held that under Section 3-H(3), the competent authority determines the amount of compensation and persons entitled, but if there is a dispute as to apportionment or title, the matter must be referred to arbitration under Section 3-H(4). The officer cannot reject the claim outright; he must refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. (Paras 6-10) B) Land Acquisition - Reference to Arbitrator - Section 3-H(4) National Highways Act, 1956 - Dispute as to Apportionment - The court clarified that the word 'dispute' in Section 3-H(4) includes a dispute regarding apportionment of compensation among co-owners. The officer's rejection of the claim without referring the dispute to arbitration was illegal. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted to the officer to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator under Section 3-H(4). (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Land Acquisition Officer (respondent No.3) was justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim for a share in compensation on the ground that the petitioner's title was not established, and whether the dispute regarding apportionment of compensation among co-owners ought to have been referred to arbitration under Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.01.2017 passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Officer, Jaikwadi Scheme), Beed, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator under Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 3-H of National Highways Act
- 1956
- Distinction between Sub-Section (3) and (4)
- Right of co-owner to claim compensation
- Reference to Arbitrator under Section 3-H(4) only when dispute as to apportionment or title
- No requirement of prior determination of title by civil court
