The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed that once a land acquisition award is passed, executive authorities cannot unilaterally apportion compensation among rival claimants. The judgment clarifies that disputes over entitlement and apportionment are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and must be resolved through the statutory mechanism provided under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Balram Singh Gond, was the recorded owner of land bearing Khasra No. 52/2, measuring 0.146 hectare, situated in Village Katghora, District Korba. The land was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) for the widening of National Highway No. 111 under the Bharatmala Project. A formal Land Acquisition Case No. 31/A-82/2018-19 was initiated, culminating in an award dated 15.07.2019, which determined the compensation amount at ₹79,35,656/- and directed its payment to the appellant as the sole entitled person.
Key Facts
- The compensation amount of ₹79,35,656/- was deposited into the appellant’s bank account on or before 15.07.2019.
- On 17.03.2020, the compensation amount was withheld by the bank upon receipt of an administrative memo from the Revenue Department.
- On 08.04.2022, the Tahsildar submitted a report claiming that Dashmat Bai Gond, Basant Bai, Indrapal Singh, Santoshi Bai, and others were also descendants of the appellant’s father, Ghurau Ram, and thus entitled to a share.
- Acting on this report, the competent authority directed the bank to apportion the compensation into six equal shares, releasing five-sixths to the other claimants and retaining only one-sixth in the appellant’s account.
- The appellant was not served with any notice, nor was he afforded an opportunity to be heard before this apportionment was ordered.
- The impugned memo dated 26.05.2022, which formalized the apportionment, was issued without any evidentiary inquiry or procedural compliance.
Procedural History
- 15.07.2019: Land Acquisition Award passed, awarding ₹79,35,656/- to the appellant as sole entitled person.
- 17.03.2020: Compensation amount withheld by bank upon administrative directive.
- 08.04.2022: Tahsildar submits report claiming multiple heirs.
- 26.05.2022: Official memo issued directing apportionment into six equal shares.
- 2022: Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No. 3602 of 2022) filed by appellant before the Single Judge of the High Court seeking quashing of the apportionment order and release of full compensation.
- 12.01.2026: Single Judge dismissed the writ petition but directed the appellant to file an application under Section 64 of the LARR Act, 2013, for reference to the competent authority.
- 28.01.2026: Writ Appeal (W.A. No. 222 of 2026) filed before the Division Bench challenging the Single Judge’s order.
The Parties' Positions
Appellant: Argued that the award was final and binding; the authorities had no power to reopen or apportion compensation after its issuance. The apportionment was an executive overreach, violating natural justice and the statutory scheme of the LARR Act, 2013.
Respondents (State and Private Claimants): Contended that the dispute involved competing claims of succession and co-ownership, which required factual adjudication beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. The apportionment was merely administrative and did not alter the award’s quantum.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought:
- Quashing of the memo dated 26.05.2022 and all consequential actions.
- Release of the full compensation amount of ₹79,35,656/- with 18% interest from the date of deposit.
- Directions to the respondents to refrain from interfering with the appellant’s vested right to the entire award amount.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 permits a writ court to direct a claimant to pursue a statutory remedy when the dispute concerns apportionment of compensation after a final award has been passed, and whether executive authorities may unilaterally apportion compensation without adjudicatory proceedings.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that once an award is passed under the LARR Act, 2013, the competent authority becomes functus officio and loses jurisdiction to alter the determination of entitlement. The apportionment ordered via memo dated 26.05.2022 was not a mere administrative step but a de facto modification of the award, violating Section 75 and 76, which only permit apportionment at the stage of award-making, not after. The action was taken without notice or hearing, violating Articles 14 and 21. The existence of an alternative remedy under Section 64 does not bar writ jurisdiction when the impugned action is ex facie without jurisdiction. The dispute raised by respondents was civil in nature - pertaining to inheritance and succession - and could only be decided by a civil court, not revenue authorities.
For the Respondent
The State and private respondents contended that the dispute involved complex questions of fact regarding heirship and entitlement, which required evidentiary appreciation. The LARR Act, 2013, under Sections 64, 75, and 76, provides a comprehensive statutory mechanism for resolving such disputes. The Single Judge correctly declined to interfere in a matter requiring factual adjudication and directed the appellant to avail the statutory remedy. The apportionment did not alter the quantum of compensation, only its distribution, and was therefore not a modification of the award. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not meant to adjudicate title disputes.
The Court's Analysis
The Division Bench carefully examined the statutory framework of the LARR Act, 2013, particularly Sections 64, 75, and 76. It noted that while Section 75 permits apportionment of compensation among persons interested at the time of award, and Section 76 provides for apportionment where the award is silent, neither provision authorizes post-award administrative apportionment by executive fiat.
"The scheme of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 specifically contemplates such apportionment in Sections 75 and 76 with particulars of apportionment and disputes relating thereto."
The Court emphasized that Section 64 provides the exclusive statutory remedy for any person interested who has not accepted the award and seeks to challenge the determination of entitlement or apportionment. The provision mandates that such disputes be referred to the competent authority constituted under Section 51, which is empowered to conduct a full inquiry, receive evidence, and pass a reasoned order.
The Court held that the Single Judge correctly recognized that the dispute between the appellant and the private respondents involved disputed questions of fact - namely, the lineage, succession rights, and co-ownership claims of the claimants. Such issues, the Court observed, cannot be resolved in writ proceedings under Article 226, which is not a forum for trial or evidentiary adjudication.
"Adjudication of such issues inevitably requires appreciation of evidence and examination of the respective claims of the parties, which cannot be conveniently undertaken in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
The Court further clarified that the Single Judge did not uphold the apportionment order but merely directed the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy. The entitlement to the compensation remained subject to the final outcome of the proceedings under Section 64, thereby preserving the appellant’s rights pending adjudication.
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the action was ex facie without jurisdiction, noting that the authorities had not acted in total bad faith or without any statutory basis. The dispute, while improperly handled, fell squarely within the ambit of Section 64. The Court also noted that the failure to afford notice was a procedural flaw, but not a jurisdictional defect that warranted immediate interference.
The Verdict
The writ appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the order dated 12.01.2026 of the Single Judge, directing the appellant to file an application under Section 64 of the LARR Act, 2013 before the Collector within fifteen days. The Collector was directed to refer the matter to the competent authority under Section 51 within thirty days, which must decide the dispute within six months after affording due opportunity of hearing and leading evidence to all parties. The entitlement to the compensation amount of ₹79,35,656/- shall remain subject to the final outcome of these proceedings. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Remedy Prevails Over Writ Jurisdiction in Apportionment Disputes
- Practitioners must now advise clients that post-award disputes over entitlement or apportionment under the LARR Act, 2013 must be raised under Section 64, not through writ petitions.
- Writ courts will routinely decline to interfere where factual disputes regarding heirship, succession, or co-ownership are involved.
- The mere existence of a final award does not preclude a statutory challenge under Section 64 if entitlement is contested.
Executive Apportionment Without Hearing Is Legally Defective
- Revenue authorities cannot issue unilateral directives to banks or treasuries to apportion compensation based on unverified reports.
- Any such action, even if styled as administrative, is void for violation of natural justice and must be challenged under Section 64.
- Legal notices issued under Section 64 must be filed within the prescribed timelines (six weeks or six months) to preserve the right to challenge.
Compensation Remains Protected Pending Adjudication
- The Court’s direction that entitlement "shall remain subject to the final outcome" ensures that no party loses their claim until adjudicated.
- Practitioners should immediately seek interim protection from the competent authority under Section 64 to prevent unauthorized disbursement of funds.
- Interest claims under Section 34 of the Act remain available if the award is upheld after statutory adjudication.
