Allahabad High Court
Ashok Kumar And 2 Others vs Union Of India And 9 Others on 22 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:92340-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17280 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar And 2 Others
Respondent :- Union Of India And 9 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhola Nath Yadav,Sanjay Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashish Jaiswal,C.S.C.,Pramod Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. The petitioners, being aggrieved by order dated 04.04.2024 passed by the Competent Authority apportioning the compensation amount between the petitioners and private respondents, have filed the instant petition.
2. The sole submission is that since there was serious dispute between the parties relating to apportionment and, therefore, the Competent Authority should have referred the matter to the Civil Court as per Section 3-H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and it erred in proceeding to decide the same itself. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on judgment of Supreme Court dated 07.07.2023 in Civil Appeal No.5107 of 2022 (Vinod Kumar and others vs. District Magistrate, Mau and others). In the said judgment, the Supreme Court, after considering the scheme of Act, has held that in a case relating to apportionment, it is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which has jurisdiction to decide the matter. The law laid down, in this regard by the Supreme Court is in 'paragraphs 33 and 34', which are reproduced below:-
"33. We are of the view that when it comes to resolving the dispute relating to apportionment of the amount determined towards compensation, it is only the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which can do so. Principal Civil Court means the Court of the District Judge.
34. Our final conclusion is as under:- If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, then, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. The competent authority possesses certain powers of the Civil Court, but in the event of a dispute of the above nature, the summary power, vesting in the competent authority of rendering an opinion in terms of subsection (3) of Section 3H, will not serve the purpose. The dispute being of the nature triable by the Civil Court that the law steps in to provide for that to be referred to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The dispute regarding apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, would then have to be decided by that Court."
3. Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, Shri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and learned State Counsel appearing for the Competent Authority very fairly concede to the legal proposition that in case of dispute relating to apportionment, it is the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction which would have jurisdiction to decide the same.
4. Having regard to the submissions made and the law laid down by Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar and others (Supra), we hereby quash the impugned order dated 04.04.2024 and direct the Competent Authority to refer the dispute relating to apportionment to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within two weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. The Civil Court shall proceed to decide the reference expeditiously after hearing the parties.
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed in above terms.
Order Date :- 22.5.2024
Jyotsana
(Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
