Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court set aside the Competent Authority’s order dated December 21, 2023, which apportioned compensation for acquired land and disbursed it to specific claimants while excluding the petitioner. The Court held that the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act), exceeded its jurisdiction in adjudicating disputes related to the apportionment of compensation. The Court directed that the dispute be referred to the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction (District Court, Solapur) and also ordered the recall of funds disbursed improperly.
Facts
- Property with Gat Nos. 360, 361, 362, and 363 in Solapur was acquired under the NH Act.
- The Competent Authority determined compensation and allocated it to three respondents (co-owners), excluding the petitioner, who claimed a one-sixth share in the ancestral property.
- The petitioner filed objections and requested that the dispute regarding apportionment of compensation be referred to the Principal Civil Court as required under Section 3H(4) of the NH Act.
- Despite the objection, the Competent Authority proceeded to disburse ₹79,80,000 to the respondents, excluding the petitioner.
- The petitioner also filed a civil suit seeking partition and separate possession.
Issues
- Whether the Competent Authority under the NH Act has jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding apportionment of compensation.
- Whether the disbursement of compensation to the respondents without referring the dispute to the Civil Court was lawful.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim to a share in the compensation was justified based on ancestral property rights.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Jurisdiction of the Competent Authority: The petitioner argued that the Competent Authority lacked jurisdiction to decide disputes related to apportionment of compensation and was required to refer the matter to the Principal Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of the NH Act.
- Violation of Precedent: The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate, Mau, which clarified that apportionment disputes fall solely under the Civil Court’s jurisdiction.
- Ancestral Property Rights: The petitioner claimed a one-sixth share in the property based on ancestral rights and argued that the exclusion from the compensation was improper.
- Hasty Disbursement: The Competent Authority’s action in disbursing compensation to the respondents before resolving the apportionment dispute was alleged to be illegal and contrary to law.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Exclusive Ownership: The respondents contended that the petitioner had no rights in the acquired property, and the Competent Authority had properly allocated the compensation.
- Authority’s Jurisdiction: It was argued that the Competent Authority was empowered to apportion compensation under Section 3H(3) of the NH Act.
- Belated Claims: The respondents claimed that the petitioner’s objection was filed late and lacked merit.
Analysis of the Law
- Jurisdiction of Competent Authority:
- The Court held that the Competent Authority’s jurisdiction under the NH Act is limited to determining the amount of compensation and identifying the parties entitled to receive it. It cannot adjudicate disputes regarding apportionment or title, as these must be referred to the Civil Court under Section 3H(4).
- This interpretation aligns with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vinod Kumar, which clarified that apportionment disputes require the involvement of a Civil Court due to the complexities involved in determining competing claims.
- Binding Precedents:
- The Court referred to Arun Lokare v. State of Maharashtra and Rajaram Rane v. Ramkrishna Rane, which confirmed that apportionment disputes must be resolved by the Principal Civil Court.
- The distinction between the determination of compensation (under Section 3H(3)) and the resolution of disputes about apportionment (under Section 3H(4)) was emphasized.
- Role of Competent Authorities:
- The Court criticized the Competent Authority for overstepping its jurisdiction by adjudicating the petitioner’s rights and disbursing compensation despite pending disputes.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied heavily on the following cases:
- Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate, Mau: Affirmed that apportionment disputes must be referred to the Civil Court and cannot be resolved by the Competent Authority.
- Arun Lokare v. State of Maharashtra: Held that Competent Authorities are limited to identifying claimants and must refer disputes to the Civil Court.
- Rajaram Rane v. Ramkrishna Rane: Clarified the harmonious reading of Sections 3H(3) and 3H(4) to ensure disputes over entitlement are also referred to the Civil Court.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Court found that the Competent Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating the apportionment dispute and disbursing the compensation without referring the matter to the Civil Court.
- It criticized the disbursal of funds as hasty, improper, and inconsistent with the scheme of the NH Act.
- The Court noted that the Competent Authority’s actions were contrary to statutory provisions and binding judicial precedents.
Conclusion
- The impugned order dated December 21, 2023, was quashed as being without jurisdiction.
- The Competent Authority was directed to:
- Refer the apportionment dispute to the Principal Civil Court, Solapur, within two months.
- Deposit ₹5,07,001, representing compensation for Gat No. 361, in the District Court, Solapur.
- The respondents were ordered to deposit ₹13,30,000 with the District Court, representing the petitioner’s claimed share, for withdrawal pending the resolution of the dispute.
Implications
- This judgment reinforces that Competent Authorities under the NH Act cannot adjudicate disputes over apportionment and must strictly adhere to statutory limits.
- It safeguards the rights of claimants, ensuring that apportionment disputes are resolved by competent judicial forums.
- The Court warned against hasty disbursals by Competent Authorities and suggested disciplinary actions for officials who violate jurisdictional boundaries.
