NH Act: Scope of Reference to Civil Court under Section 3H (4)

The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Saravanabhava v. The District Collector and Ors., (WA No. 2098 of 2025), delivered on September 12, 2025, clarified that under Section 3H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, only those disputes which the competent authority under the National Highways Act cannot decide without adjudication, such as uncertainty in title or apportionment, warrant reference to the civil court. A mere challenge to an apparently valid title deed by a third party does not oblige the competent authority to make such a reference.

The facts in brief were that the appellant, Saravanabhava, challenged the disbursal of compensation awarded under the National Highways Act to certain private respondents. He contended that the land in question had been settled under a deed executed by his father in 1968 when the appellant was a minor, and that such transfer was invalid since it was made without civil court permission. On this basis, he asserted that the compensation should not have been paid to the respondents and urged that the dispute be referred to the civil court under Section 3H (4) of the Act. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, observing inter alia that the challenge was barred by limitation, which led to the filing of the writ appeal.

In reasoning its decision, the Division Bench examined the scheme of Section 3H of the Act and underscored that the statutory intention was to relieve the competent authority of the burden of deciding title disputes which it is institutionally incapable of resolving. The provision contemplates reference to the civil court in cases involving apportionment of compensation or disputes as to entitlement, where the competent authority lacks adjudicatory capacity. However, when the claim is supported by a facially valid and subsisting document of title, the competent authority is entitled to act upon it and disburse compensation accordingly. The fact that a third party disputes the validity of such document does not by itself mandate a reference under Section 3H(4). Instead, the party disputing title must pursue independent civil proceedings to impeach the deed.

The Court clarified that unless a competent civil court sets aside such a deed, the competent authority is bound to recognise it. Further, it was emphasised that the law of limitation governs challenges to such instruments, and parties cannot circumvent statutory bars by invoking acquisition proceedings. However, while the Single Judge had found the appellant’s claim barred by limitation, the Division Bench held that such an observation was unnecessary for the present context, since the dispute did not fall within the statutory scope of Section 3H(4). The Court accordingly reserved liberty to the appellant to institute a civil suit, leaving the issue of limitation to be determined in such proceedings, but held that no reference could be compelled under the National Highways Act.

This judgment reaffirmed that the competent authority under the National Highways Act must act on valid title deeds and is not obliged to refer every collateral challenge to civil court, leaving such disputes to be independently pursued in regular civil proceedings.