National Highways Act | Competent Authority Can't Decide Disputed Compensation Shares, Must Refer Matter To Civil Court: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that where co-sharers are seriously at odds over their shares in land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, the competent authority has no jurisdiction to apportion the compensation between them and must refer the dispute to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction.
Section 3H(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956 lets the competent authority determine who, in its opinion, is entitled to receive the amount deposited. Section 3H(4) requires it to refer any dispute over apportionment, or over the person to whom the amount is payable, to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within whose limits the land is situated.
The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,
“The power under Sub-section (3) of Section 3H is a power given to the competent authority to distribute compensation according to the shares of parties so long as the entitlement to the compensation with reference to the shares of each largely remains a non-contentious issue.”
“However, if a dispute arises between parties in the sense of a lis with each party propounding a different share for himself based on past transactions and the law applicable, it is a matter which can alone be determined by the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within whose jurisdiction the land acquired is located. The competent authority in a situation of the latter kind would have no jurisdiction to decide upon entitlement of shares of parties and distribute compensation according to his opinion,” it added.
The land was originally held by Abdul Hakeem and devolved on his descendants through his son Chhote. The petitioners represent the branch of Chhote's son Abdul Shakur, and respondent nos. 1 to 5 that of his other son, Abdul Gafur. It was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, notifications under Sections 3A and 3B having issued in December 2009 and June 2010, and an award of Rs. 25,35,29,509/- was passed on 28th February 2011.
The two branches then fell out over apportionment. The petitioners claimed a 3/4th share, saying that Alauddin, Abdul Hakeem's other son who died issueless, had made an oral gift (Hiba) of his agricultural holdings in favour of Abdul Shakur, leaving the respondents a 1/4th share. That raised the question whether tenure land held under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 can pass by oral gift under the parties' personal law, the parties joining issue on whether a bhumidhar may gift only under Section 154 of that Act or whether, no mode of gift being prescribed, Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 preserved an oral gift under Mohammadan law.
The Additional District Magistrate (Administration), acting as the competent authority, divided the compensation between the two branches in equal halves. The petitioners challenged that order before the High Court.
Petitioners argued that Section 3H(4) inescapably took apportionment out of the authority's hands once a dispute arose. However, respondent nos. 1 to 5 argued that the power under Section 3H(3) to determine who may receive the money carried with it the power to apportion shares.
The Court did not agree with the respondents.
“It was a full-fledged lis and not merely a case, where the shares of parties were, more or less, agreed upon and the matter one where the competent authority could determine the shares almost as non-contentious business,” it said.
The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar and others vs. District Magistrate, Mau and others, wherein it was held that a dispute over apportionment can be resolved only by the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, meaning the court of the District Judge.
Holding that the Additional District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to apportion the compensation, the Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Additional District Magistrate, Bulandshahr to forthwith refer the dispute to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction.
Case Title: Mohd. Yaseen and others v. Mohd. Asif and others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dushyant Singh, M.C. Singh, Mohit Kumar, Rahul Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., M.N. Singh, Mahesh Narain Singh, Mahesh Narayan Singh