Competent Authority Not Bound To Refer Every Claimed Dispute U/S 3H(4) National Highways Act To Civil Courts: J&K And Ladakh High Court

The Court clarified that the dispute must be assessed from the perspective of the competent authority and not merely based on a claim raised by a third party, observing that a hypothetical or unsubstantiated challenge does not mandate reference to a civil court.

The Court was hearing writ petitions challenging the order passed by the District Collector, Baramulla, whereby the petitioners’ application seeking reference under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, for adjudication of their claim to compensation arising out of land acquisition for the Baramulla–Kupwara National Highway project, came to be rejected

Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi observed: “… a dispute, which the competent authority may refer under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, must be one that the competent authority cannot decide without adjudication, it must be a dispute from the perspective of the competent authority and not from the perspective of the person challenging it, … merely for the reason that a third-party could challenge such a judgment, the competent authority is not bound to refer such a dispute to the civil court”.

“The remedy available to such a person is to challenge the title deed in appropriate proceedings before the civil court, independent of the provisions under the National Highways Act, 195”, the Bench added.

Advocate Aswad Attar represented the appellants, while Senior Advocate Jahangir Iqbal Ganai and Deputy Advocate General Hakim Aman Ali represented the respondents.

Background

The petitions arose from claims made by the legal heirs of one of the daughters of the original landowner, seeking apportionment of compensation for land acquired for a national highway project at Delina.

The petitioners contended that the property, upon the death of the estate holder, devolved upon his widow and two daughters under Muslim Personal Law, and that they, as descendants, were entitled to a share in the acquired land.

They alleged that mutation entries had been fraudulently attested exclusively in favour of another heir and that they were not associated with the mutation proceedings. They accordingly filed civil proceedings seeking a declaration, partition, and restraint on the disbursement of compensation.

Simultaneously, they sought reference of the dispute to the civil court under Section 3H(4), which was rejected by the District Collector on the ground that the recorded owner alone was entitled to compensation.

Court’s Observation

The Court examined the statutory framework governing acquisition and compensation under the National Highways Act, noting that Section 3G deals with the determination of compensation, while Section 3H governs deposit, payment, and apportionment.

It observed that while Section 3H(3) empowers the competent authority to determine entitlement among claimants, Section 3H(4) contemplates reference only when a dispute arises that cannot be resolved at that stage. The Court held that not every assertion or claim amounts to a “dispute” requiring reference.

Rejecting the petitioners’ contention that the competent authority is bound to refer any dispute to a Civil Court, the Court held that the authority must first examine whether a genuine dispute exists at all.

“Before proceeding to determine the amount, the competent authority is bound to give a public notice published in two local newspapers, such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner before the competent authority, at a place and time to state the nature of their respective interest in such land, and if it is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall on application by parties be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the central government”, the Bench elaborated.

On the facts, the Court noted that the revenue record consistently reflected the respondent as the exclusive owner for several decades, and neither the petitioners nor their predecessor had challenged such entries during their lifetime. It further observed that the petitioners had failed to produce any material demonstrating a subsisting right, title, or interest in the acquired property before the acquisition proceedings.

“Taking into account, the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties with respect to Judgment supra, it is quite clear that the parties therein were co-sharers and their rights were determined, only their apportionment was disputed, however, in the instant case petitioners prima facie have no right, title or interest in the disputed property, as the rights are yet to be determined by the appropriate forums”, the Bench remarked.

The Court held that until a declaratory decree or adjudication establishes rights, the claim remains unsubstantiated.

The Court considered the judgment in Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate (2023) and held that the said decision applies where competing claimants have recognised or prima facie established interests. In contrast, the present case involved a claim lacking any adjudicated or recorded right, and therefore, the principle mandating reference was held inapplicable.

Applying these principles, the Court held that the competent authority had rightly declined reference, as the dispute raised by the petitioners did not meet the threshold of requiring adjudication.

Conclusion

The High Court upheld the order of the District Collector rejecting the request for reference, holding that no genuine dispute warranting adjudication by a civil court had been made out.

The Court, however, held that the dismissal of petitions shall not come in the way of the petitioners in the civil suit and the revision petition pending before the competent courts of law. The suit and revision petition, the Court directed, shall be decided by the concerned courts uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this court in this Judgment

The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Atiqa Begum & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors.

Click here to read/download Judgment