2026:UHC:736-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 10TH FEBRUARY, 2026 SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 320 OF 2023 Devendra Kumar & another …...Appellants. Versus National Highway Authority of India & others ….Respondents. Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Siddhanth Tiwari, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari and Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsels. Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Naresh Pant and Mr. Raunak Pant, learned counsel. Counsel for Respondent Nos.17 & 18 : Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel. JUDGMENT :(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.) Delay Condonation Application (IA No.01 of 2023) 1. For the reasons stated in the delay condonation application duly supported with an affidavit, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay of 07 days in filing the instant intra-court appeal is condoned. Special Appeal No.320 of 2023 2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 18.07.2023 in Writ Petition (M/S) No.2000 of 2023, whereby the writ court has declined to interfere with an order dated 29.10.2022, 1 2026:UHC:736-DB passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Haridwar in Case No.144/ VIII-S.L.A.O. (2021-22), arising out of the rival claim of compensation under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956. The writ court has observed that the claim of the appellants to the 1/3rd amount of compensation in the amount awarded, is a question which is to be decided by the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), and accordingly, while granting liberty to the appellants to avail the said remedy, the writ petition has been dismissed. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants were having 1/3rd share in the acquired land and were, therefore, entitled to 1/3rd of the compensation awarded. The appellants raised the said issue before the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority without having regard to the fact that there was serious dispute of title between the parties, has illegally proceeded to examine the dispute itself, though, it should have been referred to the Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the present intra-court appeal would not be maintainable under the Rules of Court, as the writ petition 2 2026:UHC:736-DB was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the appellants have already availed the remedy of filing declaratory Suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and therefore, the appellants, in any event, have to await the decision in the said Suit and based on the decision in the said proceedings, the claim for compensation could be made. 5. Undisputedly, the writ petition was directed against the order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. It was not an order passed by any Court, and therefore, we are of the opinion that even if the writ petition was labeled as writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but it was essentially filed invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and therefore, the preliminary objection is, hereby, overruled. 6. On merits, we find substance in the contention that as there was serious dispute of title between the parties, and accordingly, also a dispute of apportionment of the amount of compensation, therefore, the Competent Authority should have referred the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction as per the provisions of Section 3H (4) of the Act. The remedy under 3 2026:UHC:736-DB Section 3G(5) is for seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Competent Authority and in the said proceedings, the issue relating to title or apportionment cannot be decided. 7. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.07.2023 and dispose of the instant intra-court appeal as well as the writ petition with a direction to the Competent Authority to refer the dispute between the parties to the Civil Court within four weeks from the date of communication of the instant order. 8. It shall be open to the contesting respondents to raise all possible pleas before the Civil Court and the Civil Court shall decide all the issues raised before it without being influenced by any observation made in the instant order. 9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J. SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dated: 10th February, 2026 NISHANT 4