Madras High Court
The Competent Authority vs R.Subbulakshmi on 20 June, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A(MD)No.1254 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 20.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A(MD)No.1254 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)No.7719 of 2025
1.The Competent Authority
(Land Acquisition – NH)
cum Special Tahsildar,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District. ... Appellants /
Respondents
Vs.
R.Subbulakshmi ... Respondent /
Writ Petitioner
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the
order dated 03.10.2024 in W.P(MD)No.20539 of 2024 on the file of this Court
and allow the Writ Appeal.
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
W.A(MD)No.1254 of 2025
For Appellants : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.A.Kannan
Additional Government Pleader
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
JUDGMENT
(By G.R.Swaminathan J.)
Heard both sides.
2.The petition-mentioned land was acquired under the provisions of the
National Highways Act, 1956. The land as per the revenue record stood in the
name of Muthiah Thevar S/o.Muthu. The stand of the writ petitioner is that she
is the daughter of the said Muthiah Thevar. Since the appellants did not
disburse the compensation amount to her, she filed W.P(MD)No.20539 of 2024.
The learned single Judge vide order dated 03.10.2024 allowed the Writ Petition
and directed payment of compensation to the writ petitioner. Challenging the
same, this Writ Appeal has been filed.
3.The notification was not issued in the name of the writ petitioner. It
was issued in the name of one Muthiah Thevar, S/o.Muthu. It is the claim of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
the writ petitioner that the said Muthiah Thevar is her father. But as of now,
there is no supporting evidence in the form of civil court's decree declaring her
to be his legal heir. Patta is not in her name. That is why, the competent
authority did not pay the compensation to her.
4.The question that calls for consideration is whether in these
circumstances, reference to the civil court under Section 3-H(4) of the National
Highways Act,1956 can be made. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner
would contend that since there is no rival claim and there is no dispute as to
apportionment, the said provision is not applicable. The learned Additional
Advocate General, on the other hand, would want us to construe the said
provision a little expansively. According to him, if the authority entertains a
genuine doubt as to whom the compensation is payable, then, in the very nature
of things, reference has to be made to the civil Court.
5.Section 3-H of the National Highways Act, 1956 is as follows :
“3H. Deposit and payment of amount.—
(1) The amount determined under section 3G shall be deposited
by the Central Government in such manner as may be laid down
by rules made in this behalf by that Government, with the
competent authority before taking possession of the land.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
(2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited
under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall on behalf
of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or
persons entitled thereto.
(3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount
deposited under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall
determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive
the amount payable to each of them.
(4) 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, 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.....”
Section 3-H(3) of the Act mandates that where several persons claim to be
interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), the competent
authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive
the amount payable to each of them. It has been held by one of us (G.R.S, J.) in
WP(MD)No.17023 of 2019 dated 01.07.2022 (P. Jayachandran vs The
Competent Authority) that Sections 3H(3) and 3H(4) of the Act apparently
overlap each other. If among the several persons who claim to be interested in
the amount deposited under sub-section (1) dispute arises, the competent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
authority shall not make any determination but refer the dispute to the decision
of the concerned Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction as per Section
3H(4) of the Act. In other words, only if there is no dispute among the several
persons who claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section
(1), the competent authority can determine who will take how much as per
Section 3-H(3). Such a determination can also be made by the competent
authority to weed out utterly baseless claims. If a person, without even an iota
of title or interest, makes a claim and wants to stop the competent authority
from paying the compensation to a claimant having title, the competent
authority can make a determination and it is not necessary that he must refer the
matter to the civil court. Section 3-H(3) has to be understood and applied in
this sense. But where there is a serious dispute, the competent authority should
not take it upon himself the function of adjudication. He must necessarily refer
the matter under Section 3-H(4).
6.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar v. District Magistrate,
Mau (2023) 19 SCC 126 has held as follows :
“36.....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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
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 sub-
section (3) of Section 3-H, 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.”
7.In the case on hand, there is no rival claim. But, the competent
authority is having a serious doubt as to the very entitlement of the writ
petitioner to receive the compensation. Section 3-H(4) is silent on this aspect.
Is is a case of casus omissus ? Courts should not readily infer casus omissus if
through proper interpretation, the apparent gap can be bridged. Construing a
similar provision in Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Justice
Ananthanarayanan in The State of Madras vs. Subramania Iyer ((1962) 75 LW
151 : (1962) 1 Mad LJ 372 : AIR 1962 Mad 313) held as follows :
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
“...Actually in the matter before me, there appears to have been
ample justification for the officer to make a reference under S. 30,
though admittedly there was only one claimant in the case (B.V.
Subramania Aiyar). The officer seems to have made the reference
because he thought that the title of the claimant was not clearly
established by the documentary evidence before him, and that he
could not decide, upon that evidence whether the claimant was the
true and only person entitled to the compensation amount....
...
...In Sanjiva Rao's Land Acquisition and Compensation, 4th Edn.
(by Singhal) the learned author observes at page 527, that in the
context of a reference under S. 30 “the Government is neither
interested, nor is it a proper party to an apportionment proceeding,
but only the contesting documents are.” ...
The learned Counsel for the respondent (claimant) urges that the
reference itself was incompetent, because there was really no
“dispute” within the meaning of S. 30; the claimant alone made the
actual claim, and not the other benamidars. I do not think that this
view is at all sustainable. The word “dispute” is used in the context
of that section in a wide and not a literal sense, and implies any
controversy as to title, whether as between the actual claimants, or
as appearing from the documents made available by the
Government. It is obvious that, when the Government exercises its
powers of eminent domain and acquires property, public funds have
to be utilised for the payment of compensation to the true owner and
not merely to any claimant who cares to appear on the scene. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
Government have a special responsibility in this regard, and cannot
later take refuge behind the pretext that the compensation was paid
to the claimant who actually appeared, while others did not appear.
...”
The questions that arose in that case was whether the Government could have
been shown as a respondent and whether costs could have been awarded
against the Government. The learned Judge held that costs could not have been
awarded against the Government and that it has to be borne by the party
receiving the compensation.
8.We are of the view that the very same reasoning will apply to Section
3-H(4) of the National Highways Act also. The competent authority is obliged
to make a reference when there is only one claimant but there is serious doubt
as to his or her entitlement to receive the compensation. By holding so, we are
not re-writing the text of 3-H(4) of the Act. We are only following the footsteps
of our forbearer. Section 3-H(2) categorically states that after the compensation
amount has been deposited, the competent authority shall pay the amount to the
person or persons entitled thereto. If it is held that Section 3-H(4) will apply
only in case of interse disputes, the competent authority can neither pay the
amount to the claimant since there is serious doubt as to his/her entitlement nor
make a reference. It would result in a deadlock. Such a situation would not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
have been envisaged by the legislature. It is well settled that any provision in a
statute cannot be read in isolation. A statute has to be read as a whole. Section
3-H(4) cannot be divorced or delinked from 3-H(2). They have to be read
together. Only if Section 3-H(4) is understood in the manner indicated above,
the competent authority can discharge the statutory duty cast on him or her.
9.In this view of the matter, respectfully following the ratio laid down in
B.V.Subramania Iyer, we direct the competent authority to make a reference
under Section 3-H (4) of the National Highways Act within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Once such reference is
made, the civil court shall number the same and take it on file. We request the
learned trial Judge to dispose of the reference within a period of six months
thereafter. Based on the outcome of the reference, compensation shall be
disbursed.
10.We direct the appellants to deposit the entire compensation amount to
the credit of the reference OP. The said amount shall be deposited by the trial
Court in an interest bearing account in a nationalised bank. We make it clear
that we have not gone into the merits of the matter. The order of the learned
Single Judge is set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
11.This Writ Appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[G.R.S., J.] [K.R.S., J.]
20.06.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
MGA/skm
To
1.The Competent Authority
(Land Acquisition – NH)
cum Special Tahsildar,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Tahsildar,
Srivilliputhur Taluk,
Srivilliputhur,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
MGA/skm
20.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:50:28 pm )
