[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Jagannath Mandal vs The National Highway Authority Of India on 22 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:18289-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WA No. 316 of 2026
Jagannath Mandal S/o Late Jitendra Mandal Aged About 71 Years R/o
Village - Chathirma P.S. Gandinagar Tehsil- Ambikapur District- Surguja
(C.G.) (Despondent No 7)
... Appellant
versus
1 - The National Highway Authority of India Through Chairman, G5, G6
Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075
ROHIT
KUMAR 2 - The Regional Manager National Highway Authority of India, Plot No.
CHANDRA
Digitally
signed by
159, Bunglow No. 1, Shubhankar Apartments, Ramnager, Ambazari
Hilltop, Nagpur 44033, Maharashtra
ROHIT KUMAR
CHANDRA
3 - Project Director National Highway Authority of India, House No.
5196, Behind B T I T College, Shankar Nagar, Raipur 492007
4 - Project Director National Highway Authority of India, D-61, HIG - I
(Akash, Abhilasha Parisar), Behind Hightech Bus Stand, Tifra, Bilaspur
(C.G.)
5 - The Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) Surguja Division
Ambikapur, Distt. - Surguja (C.G.)
6 - Competent Authority (Under Nhai/ Sub-Divisional Magistrate
(Revenue) Ambikapur, Distt. - Surguja (C.G.) (Respondent No. 1 To 6
7 - Mohani Vishvas D/o Late Jitendra Mandal W/o Anant Vishvas Aged
About 65 Years R/o Village Chathirma Ps Gandhinagar Tehsil-
Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) (Petitioner)
... Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate
For Respondent Nos.1 to 4/NHAI : Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate
For Respondent Nos.5&6/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional
Advocate General
For Respondent No.7 : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
22.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Aman Upadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, learned counsel, appearing for
the UOI / respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned
Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent
Nos. 5 & 6 and Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for
respondent No.7.
2. This writ appeal is presented against the impugned order dated
21.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.274
of 2026 (Mohani Vishvas vs. The National Highway Authority
of India & others), whereby, the writ petition filed by writ
petitioner / respondent No.7 herein has been disposed of by the
learned Single Judge.
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the
Petitioner/Respondent No.7 herein had filed the writ petition being
WPC No. 274/2026 seeking following reliefs:-
10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent no. 6 to refer the matter before
the Principal Civil Court having jurisdiction under
Section 3(H) (4) of National Highway Act.
10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
direct the respondent no. 6 not to disburse the
awarded amount in favour of respondent no. 7 till the
decision of apportionment dispute by the competent
Civil Court having jurisdiction, accordance with law.
10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to
pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice
and equity."
4. It was submitted by the Petitioner that a lease of the disputed land
acquired by the Respondent/NHAI was issued in favour of the late
Surendra Mandal. It was further alleged that the Respondent No.7
(Appellant herein) had got the land mutated in his name in
revenue records without knowledge of the Petitioner and after
acquisition, the award acquisition has been issued in name of
Respondent No.7 (Appellant herein). The Petitioner had made an
objection before the Respondent No. 6 Competent Authority under
NHAI which was not considered and therefore she filed the said
writ petition seeking direction to the Respondent No.6 to refer the
matter to the Principal Civil Court under section 3H(4) of National
Highways Act, 1956 to resolve the dispute as to the
apportionment. The learned Single Judge by passing the
impugned order dated 21.01.2026 disposed of the said writ
petition with direction to the Respondent No. 6 to refer the matter
to the Principal Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of the National
Highways Act, 1956 and further directed to the Respondent No.6
not to disburse the amount of award of compensation against
acquisition of land till decision of the Principal Civil Court. Hence
this Appeal has been filed by the Appellant (Respondent No.7
therein).
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
order dated 21.01.2026 passed in WPC No. 274 of 2026 suffers
from a patent error of law, as the learned Single Judge has
incorrectly invoked Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act,
1956 while ignoring the scheme of the provision in its entirety. It is
contended that Section 3H(3) clearly mandates that in cases
where multiple claimants assert entitlement to compensation, the
competent authority itself is required to determine the rightful
recipients and apportionment. He further submitted that in the
present case, the competent authority (Respondent No.6) has
already adjudicated the objection raised by the petitioner and
rejected the same vide order dated 20.01.2026. Therefore, no
occasion arises for making a reference to the Principal Civil Court
under Section 3H(4), and the direction issued by the learned
Single Bench amounts to a misuse of the legal process. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has suppressed material facts
regarding the ownership and title of the disputed land bearing
Khasra Nos. 328 and 333 situated in Village Chathirama. The
appellant derives lawful title through a registered will dated
16.06.2008 executed by Smt. Amela Mandal, whose name was
duly recorded after the death of her husband, the original lessee.
Upon her demise, the appellant's name was mutated in the
revenue records by a valid order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the
competent authority, thereby establishing him as the sole owner
without any competing claim from family members. The
acquisition proceedings for the said land were carried out strictly
in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions, culminating
in an award dated 24.03.2023 determining compensation.
Learned counsel emphasizes that while the appellant has already
received part of the awarded compensation, a substantial amount
remains withheld solely due to the petitioner's untenable
objections and the impugned order. The appellant, being 71 years
of age and in need of funds for medical and daily expenses, is
facing undue hardship. It is thus argued that no case under
Section 3H(4) is made out in favour of the petitioner, and the
impugned order deserves to be set aside to enable release of the
rightful compensation to the appellant.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.7 opposes the aforesaid submission and submits that the
impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Single
Bench is well reasoned and does not call for any interference. It is
contended that the dispute in the present case is not merely
procedural but pertains to competing claims over the entitlement
to receive compensation arising out of the acquired land. In such
circumstances, the invocation of Section 3H(4) of the National
Highways Act, 1956 is fully justified, as the provision specifically
contemplates a situation where a dispute as to apportionment or
entitlement cannot be conclusively resolved by the competent
authority. The direction to refer the matter to the Principal Civil
Court ensures a fair and adjudicatory determination of rights
between the parties. It is further submitted that the so-called
rejection order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the competent
authority does not attain finality in resolving the dispute of title,
particularly when serious questions have been raised regarding
the validity of the alleged will dated 16.06.2008 and the
subsequent mutation in favour of the appellant. Mutation entries
do not confer title, and the claim of exclusive ownership set up by
the appellant is itself under cloud. The petitioner (Respondent
No.7 herein) has a legitimate claim over the disputed land, and
the same cannot be summarily brushed aside by an
administrative authority without proper adjudication by a
competent civil court. He further submits that there has been no
suppression of material facts on the part of Respondent No.7;
rather, the appellant has attempted to secure the entire
compensation amount by relying upon disputed documents. In
view of the subsisting dispute regarding entitlement, the learned
Single Bench has rightly exercised jurisdiction to prevent wrongful
disbursement of compensation. It is thus prayed that the appeal
being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed, and the direction
for reference under Section 3H(4) be upheld in the interest of
justice.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/NHAI
submits that the issue involved in the present case is no longer
res integra, having already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Vinod Kumar and Others vs. District Magistrate ,
reported in (2023) 19 SCC 126. It is submitted that in the said
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that where
there exists a dispute regarding entitlement or apportionment of
compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956, the
competent authority is required to act in accordance with Section
3H, and in appropriate cases, where rival claims raise questions
of title or require adjudication beyond administrative
determination, the matter ought to be referred to the competent
civil court under Section 3H(4) for proper adjudication. The Court
has further emphasized that the mechanism under the Act
ensures that the acquiring authority does not itself undertake
adjudication of complex title disputes, which must be left to the
civil court. Relying upon the aforesaid principle, learned counsel
submits that in the present case also, there exists a clear inter se
dispute regarding entitlement over the compensation amount, and
therefore the learned Single Judge has rightly directed reference
of the matter in terms of Section 3H(4) of the Act. It is contended
that the impugned order is fully in consonance with the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and no interference is
warranted as the direction only facilitates proper adjudication of
rival claims by the competent civil court.
8. We have heard rival submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the impugned order and other
documents appended with writ appeal.
9. The principal challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated
21.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Bench in WPC No. 274
of 2026, whereby a direction has been issued for reference of the
dispute under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
The appellant assails the said direction primarily on the ground
that the competent authority had already adjudicated the objection
and rejected the claim of the petitioner, and therefore no occasion
survived for invoking Section 3H(4) of the Act.
10. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds no merit
in the appeal. The scheme of Section 3H of the National
Highways Act, 1956 clearly contemplates that while the competent
authority may determine prima facie entitlement under Section
3H(3), in cases where serious disputes regarding entitlement or
competing claims arise, particularly involving questions of title, the
proper course is to refer the parties to the civil court under Section
3H(4). The said legal position has been authoritatively settled by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar and Others (supra),
wherein it has been categorically held that complex disputes
relating to entitlement of compensation cannot be finally
adjudicated by the acquiring authority and must be left to
determination by the competent civil court.
11. In the present case, admittedly there exist rival claims over
entitlement to compensation arising out of the acquired land, with
assertions based on competing documents including a will and
subsequent mutation entries. These issues clearly involve
disputed questions of title which cannot be conclusively
adjudicated in writ proceedings or by the competent authority. The
learned Single Judge, therefore, has rightly applied the statutory
scheme in its correct perspective and directed reference under
Section 3H(4) to ensure an appropriate adjudication by the
competent civil court. The contention that the earlier rejection
order of the competent authority forecloses such reference is
untenable in view of the binding nature of the law laid down in
Vinod Kumar (supra), which clarifies that administrative
determination cannot override the necessity of judicial
adjudication in case of genuine disputes.
12. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the facts of the case,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order
does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error
warranting interference.
13. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No
order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
