In a recent decision that could affect several land acquisition battles in Kerala, the High Court at Ernakulam dismissed a writ appeal filed by a 61-year-old man challenging the disbursal of compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956. The division bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon delivered its Judgment on 12 September 2025.
Background
The appellant, Saravanabhava from Alangad in Ernakulam district, claimed ownership over land acquired for a highway project. According to him, the land originally belonged to his father, Natarajan, who had allegedly transferred it through a settlement deed (Ext.P1) in 1968 when Saravanabhava was still a minor.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Rejects Plea Against Municipal Action, Stresses Citizens Cannot Evade Public Obligations
He argued that his father could not have legally executed the transfer without obtaining prior permission from a civil court, as the property was supposed to be protected during his minority. Based on this, he sought to stop the compensation that was awarded to several private parties and sought reference of the dispute to a civil court under Section 3H(4) of the NH Act.
Court's Observations
The judges, however, were not persuaded. They carefully examined the scope of Section 3H(4), which allows the competent authority to refer disputes over compensation to a civil court. The bench clarified that this provision applies only when the authority is genuinely unable to determine ownership or title on its own.
The bench observed,
"Merely because someone raises a dispute over a title deed does not mean the competent authority must refer it to the civil court. Unless the deed is set aside in civil proceedings, it remains valid and binding on the authority," the judgment noted.
They further explained that if a claimant produces a facially valid title deed, the authority can act on it. Only when the document itself is incomplete or doubtful on its face should the matter be referred to a civil court. Otherwise, third parties must independently challenge such deeds before a civil court, without trying to rope in the acquisition proceedings to stall disbursal.
Decision
The court held that the settlement deed relied on by the current landowners had never been legally set aside, and so the competent authority acted correctly by releasing the compensation to them. The appellant, the court said, was free to file a separate civil suit to contest the validity of the 1968 deed, but he could not use the NH Act's dispute mechanism as a shortcut.
"We reserve liberty to the appellant to challenge the title before a civil court, subject to the law of limitation," the bench clarified, while adding that the limitation period would be decided only if and when such a suit is filed.
With these observations, the division bench disposed of the writ appeal, effectively closing the door on the appellant's attempt to block compensation through the acquisition proceedings.
Case Title: Saravanabhava vs The District Collector, Ernakulam & Others
Case Number: Writ Appeal No. 2098 of 2025
