[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
26 February vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 26 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:1327
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 138 of 2026
26 February, 2026
Umesh Chand Jain & others
--Petitioners
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
State.
Mr. Naresh Pant, learned counsel for the respondent no.4-NHAI
(appeared through V.C.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of present writ petition, petitioners
have sought the following reliefs:-
"i. To declare the inaction on part of respondent no.3
whereby the respondent no.3 has failed to refer the dispute
to Principal Civil Court for adjudication despite there being an
objection by the petitioners and by ignoring the site
inspection report.
(ii) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent nos.1 to 3 to recall
the amount of compensation disbursed and paid to private
respondents, and determine the amount of compensation, in
accordance with law and to be paid to the petitioners along
with interest @ 18% from the date of award, or in alternate
keep the amount recalled from private respondents with
respondent no.3, before referring the dispute to Principal Civil
Court and refer the dispute to be adjudicated by the Principal
Civil Court, i.e. District Judge, Haridwar, as per the scheme
of Section 3H(4) of the NHAI Act, 1956."
2026:UHC:1327
2. From a reading of the aforesaid writ petition, it
transpires that there is a dispute regarding the payment
of compensation in respect of the land which is the
subject matter of the dispute to the private respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners' land situated at Haridwar Ring Road
in Village Atmalpur Bongla, Tehsil Jwalapur, District
Haridwar has been acquired by the respondent/State for
the purpose of construction of the National Highway. But
the compensation of that land has wrongly been paid to
the private respondents. The petitioners seek the return
of the said compensation, contending that they are the
rightful owners of the aforesaid land, having purchased
the same from the previous owner by way of two
registered sale deeds dated 01.01.2015 and 01.09.2015.
The said sale deeds have been annexed to the writ
petition as annexure no.1. It is further submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioners that mutation has also
been carried out in favour of the petitioners. The khatoni
thereof has also been annexed to the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.
4- NHAI submits that if the controversy relates to the
wrongful payment of compensation to the private
respondents for the land acquired by the State for the
purpose of construction of the highway, the petitioners
have a remedy to move an application before the
Competent Authority, i.e., CALA, under Section 3H(4) of
the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act,
1956"). Upon receipt of such application, CALA shall refer
the same to the Principal Civil Judge, being the court of
original jurisdiction within whose territorial limits the
land in question falls.
2026:UHC:1327
5. I have perused the provisions of Section 3H(4)
of the Act, 1956. The same is quoted hereunder:
"3H(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 if 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."
6. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid section, it
is evident that if a dispute arises as to the apportionment
of the amount, or any part thereof, or as to the 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 whose limits the land is situated.
7. In view of the above, petitioners have an
alternative remedy to approach the Competent Authority,
i.e., CALA. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh application
under Section 3H(4) of the Act, 1956 before the
Competent Authority/CALA within a period of thirty days
from today. If such an application is filed, the Competent
Authority/CALA shall consider the same for reference in
accordance with law.
8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
26.02.2026
AK
