Gurlal Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Others

Harkesh Manuja, J

Short reply dated 25.09.2025 has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 and the same is taken on record. A copy of the same has been supplied to the opposite counsel.

In the present case, the challenge has been laid on behalf of the petitioners to the notice dated 19.01.2022/27.01.2022, whereby the petitioners were directed to refund/deposit the amount of compensation paid to them in excess. Briefly stating, some land owned by the petitioners along with co-sharer i.e., respondent No.4, falling in Khasra No.36"/17 and 36"/14, in the revenue estate of Chabba, Tehsil and District Amritsar, came to be acquired vide notification dated 21.10.2020 issued under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956, (hereinafter to be referred as ‘1956 Act’) followed by notifications dated 18.12.2020 and 25.12.2020 issued under Section 3D of the Act. The award under Section 3G of the Act was passed by the Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar-2 on 29.04.2021, the entire amount of compensation against the aforementioned land was paid to the petitioners by way of three installments dated 09.12.2021, 13.12.2021 and 15.12.2021.

As soon as the remaining co-sharers approached the respondents for release of their share of the compensation amount, notice dated 19.01.2022 was served upon the petitioners by the office of respondent No.3, directing them to refund the excess amount. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid notice dated 19.01.2022.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the present dispute pertains to the apportionment of compensation, the same cannot be decided by respondent No.3 on his own without referring the matter to the Court of competent jurisdiction in terms of Section 3H(4) of the Act. In this regard, learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Nirmal Singh vs. Union of India and others, 2012 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 44. Paragraph No.8 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

“8. It is true that the Act is a special statute which has clothed the Central Government with the power to acquire any land for a public purpose,which is required for building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof. But many provisions of the Act are akin to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ''the 1894 Act''). A perusal of Sections 3A, 3C and 3D of the Act would show that they are similar to Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the 1894 Act respectively in their contents and intendment. Even Section 3H(3) and (4) of the Act are somewhat similar to Sections 18 and 30 respectively of the 1894 Act. Likewise, further provisions like Sections 3H and 3G of the Act are equivalent to Sections 16 and 11 of the 1894 Act. Then it follows that the Competent Authority under the Act designated by respondent Nos.1 and 2 would not be clothed with the power to adjudicate the claim of apportionment made by the parties in respect of the land for which notifications for acquisition have been issued under the Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 3H of the Act, the Competent Authority may mdetermine the persons who would be entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them where several persons make claim in respect of the amount deposited under sub-section (1) of Section 3H of the Act. This Section does not talk about any dispute between several claims, which in fact, has been specifically dealt with in sub-section (4) of Section 3H of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 3H of the Act opens with the words '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 nominated by the State Government like respondent No. 4 is under obligation to refer the dispute to the decision of the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. Therefore, we are of the view that under the garb of power to determine the persons who in the opinion of the Competent Authority would be entitled to receive the amount of compensation, which is in dispute, the Competent Authority could not have entered upon adjudication of the dispute and a reference should have been made to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Once the aforesaid legal position is clear from the reading of the provisions itself, the consequence of determining the apportionment between the petitioner and the private respondents have to be left to the adjudication of the District Judge.”

Learned counsel further places reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP-24401-2015 titled as Ram Sarup and others vs. Union of India and others, 2017 (5) R.C.R. Paragraph No.9 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

“9. Adverting to the factual matrix herein, it may be noticed that vide the impugned order dated 6.10.2015 (Annexure P-7), respondent No.4 had sought to adjudicate the issue of ownership and claim of the petitioners and had acted beyond the jurisdiction in recording a finding that the petitioners are in illegal possession of the land in question as they had not paid any rent after the year 2001. It has also been observed that the petitioners being in illegal possession of the land belonging to the State Government were not entitled to any compensation. Respondent No.4 while deciding the claim of the petitioners on an application filed by them under Section 3H(3) & (4) of the Act was under an obligation to refer the same to the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction where the property is situated and not to express any opinion on the merits of the controversy and reject it. It does not fall within the domain of respondent No.4 and, therefore, order dated 6.10.2015 passed by respondent No.4 is legally unsustainable. “

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 submit that the excess amount of compensation against the aforementioned two khasra numbers was released in favour of the petitioners under BONA FIDE mistake as they were in exclusive possession of the aforementioned land. Learned counsel further submit that as soon as this fact was brought to the notice of respondent No.3, notices were served upon the petitioners for return of the excess amount

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 submits that the present dispute does not pertain to apportionment. He points out that as per the revenue records, the petitioners were never recorded to be in exclusive possession of the entire property forming part of the aforementioned two Khasra numbers and thus were not entitled to the release of entire compensation amount.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties.

A perusal of jamabandi for the year 2016-17 which is just prior to the notification dated 29.10.2020, issued under Section 3(A) of the 1956 Act shows that petitioners No.1 and 2, namely Gurlal Singh and Sarabjit Kaur, have been recorded to be owners of 1/12ᵗʰ share each, whereas petitioners No.3 and 4, namely Gurmeet Kaur and Jasbir Singh, have been recorded to be owners to the extent of 1/4ᵗʰ share each. However, the remarks column reflects that petitioners No.3 and 4, namely Gurmeet Kaur and Jasbir Singh, sold some part of their share out of rectangle no.36, killa no.13 and 14, to one Jasdeep Kaur, wife of Balwinder Singh which fact has nowhere been disputed or denied.

In such circumstances, the present dispute cannot be termed as a dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation as per Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, but the same falls under Section 3H(3) of the said Act as the only issue to be determined by respondent No.3 is to find out the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them. In view of the same, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners would not be of any assistance. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

The respondent No.3 shall now proceed further in terms of the notice dated 19.01.2022/27.01.2022 (Annexure P-6) and shall conclude the proceedings within four months from today after affording opportunities to all concerned. In furtherance thereof, the respondent No.3 shall ensure the disbursement of compensation to the rightful owners, as per their entitlement within a period of two months from date of such conclusion.

It is made clear that in case the respondent No.3 fails to conclude the proceedings within the aforementioned schedule, the rightful owners shall be entitled to payment on account of delay in proceedings by respondent No.3, at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month.

A copy of this order be forwarded to respondent No.3 in his/her official capacity.