1 2026:CGHC:26098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2921 of 2026 Hori Lal Sahu S/o Shri Moti Ram Sahu Aged About 50 Years Occupation Agriculturist, R/o House No. 43, Village Mokhetara, Patwari Halka No. 05 (Formerly P.H. No. 31/47), Tahsil Gobra Nawapara (Formerly Tahsil Abhanpur), Distt. Raipur, C.G., Pin Code 493661. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) And Competent Authority For Land Acquisition (C A L A) Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - National Highways Authority Of India (N H A I) Through Its Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Tahsildar Gobra Nawapara (Formerly Tahsil Abhanpur), Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Temanlal S/o Shri Bhaganlal Sahu R/o Village Mokhetara, Tahsil Gobra Nawapara, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Ramkhilawan Sahu S/o Shri Moti Ram Sahu (Biological Brother Of The Petitioner), R/o Village Mokhetara, Tahsil Gobra Nawapara, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 7 - Smt. Janki Bai Sahu W/o Shri Ramkhilawan Sahu (Sister In Law Of The Petitioner), R/o Village Mokhetara, Tahsil Gobra Nawapara, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.06.25 19:06:15 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. Shantam Awasthi, Advocate For State : Mr. S.S. Choubey, Government Advocate For NHAI : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 25.06.2026 1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner calls in question the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order-sheet entry/stay order dated 17.02.2026 passed by respondent No.2, Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), Abhanpur, District Raipur, whereby disbursement of the land acquisition compensation amounting to ₹15,73,143.80, determined in favour of the petitioner in respect of acquired land bearing Khasra No.164/5 admeasuring 0.20 hectares situated at Village Mokhetra, District Raipur, has been indefinitely withheld on the basis of objections relating to a separate and unacquired parcel of land bearing Khasra No.164/4. The petitioner contends that the impugned action is without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, and has resulted in unlawful withholding of the compensation lawfully payable to him. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- “i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to call for the records of the case and quash the impugned administrative stay order dated February 17, 3 2026, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, Abhanpur, District Raipur, in the revenue order-sheet, whereby the disbursement of the finalized land acquisition compensation for Khasra No. 164/5 has been indefinitely stayed; ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding Respondent No. 2 to forthwith disburse the legally determined compensation amount of ₹15,73,143.80 to the petitioner along with statutory interest at the rate of 9% per annum under Section 3H(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, calculated from the date of the supplementary award (May 25, 2021) until the date of actual payment; iii. In the alternative, if this Hon'ble Court finds that a bona fide dispute exists, issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to immediately refer the dispute to the. Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (the District Judge, Raipur) under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, within a strict, time-bound period of 30 days, with a further direction to deposit the compensation amount with the said Court in accordance with the law; iv. Pass such other or further writ, order, or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compensation amount in respect of acquired land bearing Khasra No.164/5 has 4 already been determined in favour of the petitioner and despite there being no dispute regarding the acquired land, the competent authority has withheld the disbursement of compensation. It is submitted that instead of keeping the matter pending, the competent authority ought to have acted in accordance with the provisions of Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘Act of 1956’). Therefore, appropriate directions may be issued for redressal of the petitioner's grievance. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that the matter has not yet been finally adjudicated by the competent authority. It is further submitted that if any dispute regarding entitlement or apportionment of compensation survives, the competent authority shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Section 3H of the Act of 1956 and pass an appropriate order of reference to the competent Civil Court, if so required under law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority of India submits that the petitioner may avail the statutory remedy available under Section 3H of the Act of 1956 by approaching the competent authority and filing an appropriate application raising all his grievances before the said authority. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the provisions contained in Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 which deals with 5 deposit and payment of compensation. In particular, sub-section (4) of Section 3H provides that where any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or as to the person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Competent Authority shall refer such dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated. Thus, the statutory scheme contemplates that in the event of any dispute regarding entitlement or apportionment of compensation, the Competent Authority is not required to keep the matter pending indefinitely, but is under an obligation to make a reference to the competent Civil Court for adjudication in accordance with law. Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956 reads as follows :- “3H. Deposit and payment of amount.-*** *** (4) If any 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.” 7. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is that despite determination of compensation in respect of the acquired land bearing Khasra No.164/5, the amount has not been disbursed. At the same time, it is the stand of the State that the competent authority is yet to take a final decision in the matter and, if any dispute survives, appropriate recourse under Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 6 1956 shall be undertaken. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner's grievance can appropriately be examined by the Competent Authority in the first instance in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 3H of the Act of 1956. 8. Since a dispute has been raised by respondents No.5 to 7 before the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, regarding entitlement to and disbursement of the compensation amount, the matter would attract the provisions contained in Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Vinod Kumar and others v. District Magistrate, Mau and others, (2023) 19 SCC 126, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 3H(4) of the Act of 1956, has held in paragraph 36 as under:- “36. Our final conclusion is as under: 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 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 7 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.” 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar (supra), it is quite vivid that a dispute with regard to entitlement to and disbursement of the compensation amount has been raised before the Competent Authority by respondents No.5 to 7, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the submission made on behalf of the State that the competent authority is yet to pass an appropriate order in accordance with Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served by relegating the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy before the competent authority. 11. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file an appropriate application before respondent No.2/Competent Authority under Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 within a period of 15 days from today. Upon such application being filed, the competent authority shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. In the event the competent authority finds that a dispute regarding entitlement or apportionment of compensation 8 exists requiring adjudication by the Civil Court, appropriate proceedings for reference under Section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956 shall be undertaken expeditiously and strictly in accordance with law. 12. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival claims and all questions are left open to be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh