The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that the competent authority is under a statutory obligation to refer the dispute relating to entitlement of compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956, to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and withhold disbursement till the same is resolved.

The appellants preferred the appeal against the order whereby the writ petition filed by the private respondent was disposed of with a direction to the official respondents, particularly Collector Land Acquisition, Baramulla (Additional Deputy Commissioner), to ensure payment of compensation as per the award to the petitioner.

The Division Bench Of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem held, “In view of the above, this Court finds substance in the contention that the impugned order could not have been passed directing release of the entire compensation in favour of the private respondent alone, when serious disputes regarding title, co-ownership, and apportionment of compensation were already raised and were pending adjudication before the competent civil court as well as before the authority under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. It is a settled position of law that where there is a dispute as to entitlement or apportionment of compensation, the competent authority is under a statutory obligation to refer such dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and withhold disbursement till the dispute is resolved.”

Advocate Imam Abdul Muizz represented the Appellant while Asst. Counsel Nowbahar Khan represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case as set up by the writ petitioner (private respondent) was that his land and structures forming part of his immovable property, had been acquired for the purpose of widening of the Srinagar– Baramulla National Highway (NH-44). It was pleaded that though an award was passed in the matter, the compensation amount assessed in his favour was not disbursed despite repeated representations. On the basis of the material produced, particularly the apportionment statement showing the petitioner’s land and structures, the Single Judge directed release of compensation in favour of the private respondent.

The appellants, who were not arrayed as parties in the writ petition, assailed the order mainly on the ground that the land under Survey did not exclusively belong to the private respondent, but was joint and unpartitioned property inherited by the parties from their common ancestors who had received the said land by way of exchange with the State. The grievance of the appellants was that the impugned order of the Single Judge was passed without giving them an opportunity of being heard, even though they were co-owners of the property.

Reasoning

After examining the facts of the case, the Bech found that the private respondent failed to disclose material facts before the Single Judge, namely, the pendency of a civil suit between the parties and the fact that the appellants had already moved an application under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, before the Collector, Land Acquisition, seeking reference of the matter to the Court of the Principal District Judge, Baramulla.

The Bench took note of the fact that the appellants, though not impleaded as parties before the Single Judge, had asserted prima facie co-ownership over the acquired land, supported by their plea that the property was joint and unpartitioned, and it was further claimed that civil proceedings regarding partition and declaration were pending. “In such circumstances, the direction to release compensation solely in favour of the private respondent has the effect of prejudicing the rights of the appellants without affording them an opportunity of being heard, thereby offending the principles of natural justice”, it added.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned order to the extent it directed the release of compensation exclusively in favour of the private respondent. The Bench thus disposed of the petition by directing the respondent, Collector Land Acquisition Baramulla, to keep the compensation amount in deposit and proceed strictly in accordance with Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Cause Title: Abdul Aziz Bhat v. UT of J&K and others (Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-SGR:60-DB)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Imam Abdul Muizz, Naseer-ul-Akba

Respondent: Asst. Counsel Nowbahar Khan, Advocates Mariya Ashraf, Altaf Mehraj

Click here to read/download Order


Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High CourtJustice Sindhu SharmaJustice Shahzad Azeem

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.