My Land-Acquisition Compensation Was Paid to the Wrong Co-Sharer or Recorded Owner - How Can the Real Title Holder Recover It?

Legally reviewed and updated: 10 September 2026

Legal research by Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh.

Direct Answer

Yes. If acquisition compensation was paid to the wrong person, the lawful title holder or co-sharer does not automatically lose the right merely because the money has already been disbursed.

But the correct remedy depends upon the statute under which the land was acquired.

For a National Highway acquisition, a genuine dispute about:

  • who is entitled to compensation; or
  • how compensation should be divided among co-sharers

falls within Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

The dispute must be referred by the Competent Authority/CALA to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction — ordinarily the District Judge having jurisdiction over the acquired land.

For acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Sections 64, 76 and 77 contain a different reference, apportionment and payment mechanism.

Most importantly, Section 77 expressly preserves the liability of a person who wrongly receives compensation to pay the amount to the person ultimately found lawfully entitled.

First Identify the Real Problem

Not every “wrong compensation” case is legally the same.

The dispute may be:

  • one co-sharer received the entire compensation;
  • compensation was paid according to an outdated mutation entry;
  • the previous owner received compensation even though the land had already been sold;
  • one heir was recorded and other heirs were omitted;
  • a partition had already taken place but acquisition records still showed the old joint ownership;
  • the award itself was prepared in the wrong person's name;
  • the award correctly recognised several owners but payment was made only to one;
  • a stranger or alleged fraudulent claimant received the money;
  • there is a genuine pending title/partition dispute.

The legal strategy changes depending upon which of these situations exists.

Recorded Owner Is Not Always the Legal Owner

A common Government response is:

“We paid the person whose name appeared in the revenue record.”

That may explain how the error occurred.

It does not necessarily establish that the recipient had exclusive title to the compensation.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that mutation entries in revenue records are principally maintained for fiscal purposes.

Mutation by itself does not create or extinguish ownership.

In Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 802, the Supreme Court reiterated that revenue entries or mutation do not by themselves confer title to property.

Therefore:

NAME IN JAMABANDI ≠ CONCLUSIVE TITLE.

The real compensation entitlement may depend upon:

  • registered sale deed;
  • inheritance;
  • partition decree;
  • family settlement;
  • probate/succession documents;
  • civil-court judgment;
  • legally established co-ownership;
  • other title documents.

National Highway Cases: Section 3H Is the Starting Point

Once compensation under the National Highways Act has been determined and deposited with the Competent Authority, Section 3H governs payment.

Section 3H(3)

Where several persons claim an interest in the amount deposited, the Competent Authority may determine the persons who, in its opinion, are entitled to receive the amount and the amount payable to each.

Section 3H(4)

But once there is a genuine dispute regarding:

  • apportionment; or
  • the person to whom the compensation or part of it is payable,

the statute requires the dispute to be referred to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.

The Competent Authority should not convert its summary disbursement function into a full title trial.

Vinod Kumar: Supreme Court Clarified Who Decides the Dispute

The leading current Supreme Court authority is Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. District Magistrate, Mau & Ors., 2023 INSC 606.

The Supreme Court examined the distinction between Section 3H(3) and Section 3H(4).

The Court held that where the controversy actually concerns apportionment or the person entitled to compensation, the matter must be determined by the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.

For this purpose, the Principal Civil Court is the Court of the District Judge.

The Competent Authority's summary power under Section 3H(3) is not a substitute for civil-court adjudication of a genuine entitlement dispute.

Therefore, where two co-sharers both say:

“I am legally entitled to this compensation,”

CALA cannot ordinarily settle a serious title dispute merely by choosing one claimant and closing the matter.

Sikandar Singh: 100% Compensation Allegedly Paid to the Other Co-Owner

The Patna High Court decision most closely matching this problem is Sikandar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., CWJC No.5862 of 2018, decided on 9 February 2023.

The petitioner's case was that land had been acquired for construction of the sixth lane of NH-2.

He claimed that:

  • he was also an owner of the acquired land;
  • he was entitled to half the compensation;
  • 100% of the compensation had instead been paid to respondent no.7.

Patna High Court did not hold that the petitioner had lost his claim merely because payment had already been made.

The Court directed the petitioner to raise his claim before CALA.

CALA was directed to refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under Section 3H(4) for adjudication.

This is a particularly important Bihar authority where:

ONE CO-OWNER ALLEGED THAT THE OTHER CO-OWNER HAD ALREADY RECEIVED THE ENTIRE NHAI COMPENSATION.

What Does Sikandar Singh Mean Practically?

Suppose two brothers legally own a property 50:50.

NHAI acquires it.

Because only Brother A's name appears in an old jamabandi, the entire compensation of Rs.40 lakh is paid to Brother A.

Brother B later proves that he legally owns half the property.

The analysis is not:

“The Government has already paid Rs.40 lakh, therefore Brother B gets nothing.”

The real statutory question is:

“Who was lawfully entitled to the compensation and in what proportion?”

That is the question Section 3H(4) is designed to adjudicate.

Nand Kishore Prasad Singh: Rival Ownership Claims Also Go to Section 3H(4)

In Nand Kishore Prasad Singh @ Kishori Prasad Singh v. Union of India & Ors., CWJC No.3742 of 2014, decided on 20 May 2016, rival parties claimed ownership of the acquired land.

Patna High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority under Section 3H(4) for reference of the ownership/compensation dispute to the Principal Civil Court.

This illustrates the distinction between:

COMPENSATION AMOUNT DISPUTE

and

COMPENSATION ENTITLEMENT/TITLE DISPUTE.

The first may involve valuation/arbitration.

The second invokes the statutory entitlement/apportionment mechanism.

Md. Hasnain: Pending Partition and Payment to Another Family Member

In Md. Hasnain v. Union of India, CWJC No.9419 of 2025, an order was passed by Patna High Court on 19 June 2025.

The petitioner challenged compensation of approximately Rs.15.61 lakh awarded in favour of another family member in relation to land acquired for the Ganga Rail-cum-Road Access Road/NH-333B.

The petitioner's case included the allegation that:

  • the property was joint-family property; and
  • a partition suit concerning the property was already pending.

Patna High Court treated the dispute as one for the Section 3H(4) civil-court mechanism rather than undertaking a title trial in writ jurisdiction.

This is important where the claimant's share itself remains contested.

Section 3H(4) Is Not the Same as Section 3G Arbitration

This distinction is extremely important.

Section 3G / Arbitration

This principally concerns the amount of compensation determined for the acquired land.

Example:

“My land was valued at Rs.50 lakh but should have been valued at Rs.80 lakh.”

Section 3H(4)

This concerns who gets the compensation or how it is divided.

Example:

“The compensation is Rs.50 lakh. I say Rs.25 lakh belongs to me as a 50% co-owner, but all Rs.50 lakh was paid to my brother.”

Filing only a compensation-enhancement arbitration will not automatically decide the title/apportionment controversy.

Can I Directly File a Fresh Civil Suit Under Section 3H(4)?

Be careful.

Section 3H(4) expressly says that the Competent Authority shall refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court.

Therefore, the safest statutory route ordinarily is:

  1. raise the compensation-entitlement dispute before CALA;
  2. request a reference under Section 3H(4);
  3. obtain the reference to the District Judge/Principal Civil Court;
  4. adjudicate title/share/apportionment there.

If CALA refuses to make the reference despite a genuine dispute, Article 226 may be invoked to challenge that refusal or compel performance of the statutory duty.

The procedural history must be checked carefully before independently instituting another civil proceeding because the statutory reference mechanism should not be bypassed casually.

What If Money Has Not Yet Been Released?

Act immediately.

If you learn before disbursement that the compensation is about to be paid exclusively to another claimant, immediately lodge a written title/apportionment objection.

Request:

  • withholding of the disputed compensation;
  • no disbursement to any single claimant;
  • recording of your title documents;
  • reference under Section 3H(4);
  • notice before any payment.

Preventing wrongful disbursement is considerably easier than tracing/recovering compensation after payment.

What If the Entire NHAI Compensation Has Already Been Paid?

Do not assume the proceeding has become meaningless.

The Sikandar Singh case itself involved an allegation that 100% compensation had already been paid to the other respondent.

Patna High Court nevertheless directed invocation of Section 3H(4).

Accordingly:

  1. obtain the award and disbursement record;
  2. identify exactly who received the amount;
  3. identify the bank/payment date and amount;
  4. prove your title/share;
  5. raise the Section 3H(4) dispute before CALA;
  6. seek reference and adjudication;
  7. claim appropriate consequential restitution/recovery after entitlement is determined.

The precise recovery direction will depend upon the adjudication, parties before the Court and factual circumstances.

State Government Acquisition: The 2013 RFCTLARR Act Is Different

Where the land is acquired under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the statutory route changes.

Three provisions are particularly important:

  • Section 64;
  • Section 76;
  • Section 77.

Section 64: Reference Regarding the Person Entitled or Apportionment

Section 64 permits a person interested who has not accepted the award to make a written application to the Collector requiring a reference to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority.

The objection may concern:

  • measurement;
  • amount of compensation;
  • person to whom compensation is payable;
  • rehabilitation and resettlement rights;
  • apportionment among persons interested.

The Collector is required to make the reference within the statutory period prescribed by Section 64.

Where the Collector fails to make the reference within thirty days of receipt of the application, Section 64 also enables the applicant to approach the Authority asking it to direct the Collector to make the reference.

Do Not Miss the Section 64 Limitation

The 2013 Act contains specific limitation provisions.

Broadly:

  • where the applicant was present or represented when the award was made — application is ordinarily required within six weeks from the award;
  • in other cases — within six weeks of receipt of the relevant notice or within six months from the award, whichever expires first;
  • the Collector has a limited further power to entertain a delayed application within the additional period specified by Section 64 where sufficient cause is shown.

Therefore, do not wait for a family partition case to continue for years before examining the compensation-reference limitation.

Section 76: Dispute About Who Should Receive the Money

Section 76 specifically provides that when compensation has been settled and a dispute arises:

  • as to apportionment; or
  • as to the persons to whom the compensation or part thereof is payable,

the Collector may refer the dispute to the Authority constituted under the 2013 Act.

This is particularly relevant where:

  • several heirs claim the same compensation;
  • a co-sharer claims a larger share;
  • partition is disputed;
  • the award follows an incorrect revenue entry;
  • one claimant alleges exclusive title and another alleges joint title.

Section 77: The Most Important Provision When Payment Has Gone to the Wrong Person

Section 77 governs payment or deposit of compensation.

Where a genuine dispute exists regarding:

  • title to receive compensation; or
  • apportionment,

the Collector should deposit the amount with the competent Authority rather than finally resolve the title dispute by simply paying one rival claimant.

The most important safeguard appears in the proviso to Section 77(2).

The Act expressly preserves the liability of a person who receives the whole or any part of compensation to pay it to the person who is lawfully entitled.

Therefore:

WRONG PAYMENT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY BECOME RIGHTFUL OWNERSHIP OF THE MONEY.

Kashinath Mishra: Patna High Court Division Bench in 2026

A highly relevant recent Bihar authority is Kashinath Mishra v. State of Bihar, LPA No.111 of 2025, decided on 26 February 2026.

The appellant asserted rights over ancestral land acquired for the Ram Janki Path project.

His case was that:

  • the property had fallen to his share;
  • he was in possession;
  • co-sharers were attempting to receive compensation;
  • he had filed objections and relied upon a Circle Officer's enquiry/report.

The Single Judge had dismissed the writ.

The Division Bench examined Section 76 of the 2013 Act and held that the appellant's request for reference of the apportionment controversy should not have been rejected.

The earlier order was set aside.

The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Siwan was directed to refer the dispute to the Authority.

Importantly, the High Court expressly stated that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the appellant's ultimate entitlement.

This is exactly how Article 226 should often operate in a title/apportionment dispute:

THE HIGH COURT ENSURES THE CORRECT STATUTORY FORUM DECIDES THE CLAIM; IT NEED NOT ITSELF CONDUCT THE TITLE TRIAL.

National Highways Act vs RFCTLARR Act — Do Not Mix the Forums

Issue National Highways Act RFCTLARR Act, 2013
Who is entitled / apportionment dispute? Section 3H(4) Sections 64/76
Primary adjudicatory forum Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction / District Judge upon statutory reference Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority
Who initiates statutory referral? CALA / Competent Authority Collector, subject to Section 64 mechanism
Wrongful recipient's continuing liability expressly stated? Section 3H contains the entitlement/reference mechanism; consequential recovery depends upon adjudication and applicable law Section 77 expressly preserves liability to the person lawfully entitled
Low valuation dispute? Section 3G arbitration mechanism Section 64 reference mechanism

The fact that compensation values for a National Highway project may use principles associated with the 2013 Act does not automatically replace the special Section 3H(4) entitlement mechanism under the National Highways Act.

How Does a Real Title Holder Prove Entitlement?

Build the case in layers.

1. Source of Title

  • registered sale deed;
  • gift deed;
  • partition deed;
  • family settlement;
  • inheritance/succession;
  • civil-court decree;
  • probate/letters of administration where applicable.

2. Identity of the Acquired Property

  • mauza;
  • thana number;
  • khata;
  • khesra/plot;
  • area;
  • boundaries;
  • acquisition schedule.

3. Your Share

If the land is jointly owned, state mathematically: 

Total acquired land:       12 decimals
My lawful share:           1/3
My acquired share:          4 decimals
Total compensation:        Rs.60,00,000
My claimed share:          Rs.20,00,000
Amount actually received:  Nil

4. Wrong Payment

Obtain documents showing:

  • award number;
  • awardee name;
  • payment order;
  • voucher/payment advice;
  • date of disbursement;
  • amount;
  • recipient.

What If the Property Is Ancestral and Never Formally Partitioned?

Do not claim an arbitrary physical portion merely because every heir is a family member.

The issue may be one of:

  • undivided fractional shares;
  • prior oral partition;
  • registered partition;
  • family settlement;
  • succession after deaths;
  • pending partition suit.

If shares remain legally disputed, the acquisition authority is not the correct body to conduct a complex partition trial through summary correspondence.

The statutory reference/adjudicatory forum must determine the entitlement.

What If the Previous Owner Received the Compensation?

Assume:

  • A sold the land to B through a registered sale deed;
  • mutation was never completed;
  • the acquisition record continued to show A;
  • compensation was paid to A.

B should immediately establish:

  • registered conveyance date;
  • identity of the conveyed plot;
  • whether title had passed before the legally relevant acquisition/payment stage;
  • possession;
  • mutation application, if any;
  • award/payment record.

The absence of mutation does not by itself reverse a valid registered transfer.

The legal entitlement must be decided from title and the applicable acquisition law, not merely from the old fiscal entry.

What If the Wrong Recipient Says, “My Name Was in Jamabandi, So the Money Is Mine”?

That argument is not automatically decisive.

Revenue records are important evidence and may explain possession or revenue administration.

But they are not necessarily conclusive documents of ownership.

The claimant should place the complete title chain before the adjudicatory forum.

Where title itself remains genuinely disputed, the appropriate judicial/statutory forum must determine it.

What If I Had Already Objected Before Payment but CALA Paid the Other Person Anyway?

This creates a materially stronger procedural grievance.

Immediately obtain:

  • your objection;
  • acknowledgement;
  • date of objection;
  • payment date;
  • any enquiry report;
  • order authorising disbursement.

The chronology should demonstrate: 

TITLE/APPORTIONMENT DISPUTE RAISED:   05.03.2026

CALA RECEIVED OBJECTION:              06.03.2026

NO REFERENCE MADE:                    YES

100% PAYMENT TO OTHER CLAIMANT:       20.03.2026

That is significantly different from a case where the authority had no notice of any rival claim before payment.

An Article 226 challenge may then focus upon failure to follow the mandatory statutory reference/deposit mechanism.

Can the High Court Order the Wrong Recipient to Immediately Refund Me?

Not necessarily on disputed facts.

If title/share is seriously contested, Patna High Court may decline to decide who owns what percentage merely on affidavits.

The more appropriate relief may be:

  • direction to CALA to make Section 3H(4) reference;
  • direction to Collector to make Section 64/76 reference;
  • protection of any undistributed amount;
  • time-bound adjudication;
  • implementation of the final entitlement decision.

Once entitlement is established by the competent forum, consequential recovery/payment can follow according to law.

What If There Is No Real Title Dispute?

Suppose:

  • your registered deed is admitted;
  • the other recipient admits your 50% ownership;
  • the authority itself admits payment error;
  • only correction/payment remains pending.

This is materially different from a contested partition case.

Where entitlement is undisputed and only administrative implementation remains, a direct mandamus for lawful processing/payment may become more appropriate than an unnecessary title reference.

The authority should not manufacture an artificial “title dispute” merely to delay payment.

What If the Wrong Recipient Has Already Spent the Money?

Spending the compensation does not automatically transform wrongful receipt into lawful entitlement.

Under the 2013 Act, Section 77 expressly preserves the recipient's liability to the person lawfully entitled.

For National Highway cases, the Section 3H(4) adjudication should determine the underlying entitlement and consequential claims should be specifically raised before the competent forum.

Do not delay simply because the recipient says:

“The money is already gone.”

The primary question remains whether that person was legally entitled to retain it.

Can Government Say, “We Already Paid Once, We Will Not Pay Again”?

That statement does not, by itself, determine the real owner's legal rights.

The answer depends upon:

  • the applicable acquisition statute;
  • whether the Government had notice of the rival claim;
  • whether it wrongfully ignored a mandatory deposit/reference requirement;
  • whether the payment followed the award in good faith;
  • who the competent adjudicatory forum finds lawfully entitled;
  • what recovery/restitution directions are legally warranted.

The lawful title holder should not frame the case merely as:

“Please pay me twice.”

The proper contention is:

“I have never received the compensation legally attributable to my acquired title/share. The statutory entitlement dispute must be adjudicated and implemented, including appropriate recovery/restitution consequences concerning the wrongful payment.”

Documents Required Before Filing

Document Why It Matters
Registered title deed Primary source of acquired title.
Prior title deeds Establish chain of title.
Partition deed/decree Shows individual share.
Genealogy/death certificates Necessary in inheritance cases.
Probate/succession papers Relevant where title flows through testamentary succession.
Khatiyan Revenue identity/history.
Jamabandi Current revenue record, but not conclusive title.
Mutation order Shows fiscal entry and administrative history.
Acquisition notification Identifies land acquired.
Section 3D / Section 19 declaration Confirms acquisition stage.
Award Shows compensation and recorded beneficiaries.
Apportionment statement Shows shares recognised by authority.
Payment/disbursement statement Proves who actually received money.
Bank/payment advice Shows date and amount of payment.
Earlier objection Proves authority knew of dispute.
CALA/DLAO order Shows whether reference was accepted/refused.
Pending title/partition case Material to disputed ownership.
Circle Officer enquiry report Can support factual title/share inquiry but is not automatically conclusive.

Prepare a Compensation Entitlement Chart

Issue Your Case Wrong Recipient
Source of title ________ ________
Share ________ ________
Mutation/Jamabandi ________ ________
Possession before acquisition ________ ________
Award records ________ ________
Compensation legally claimed Rs. ______ Rs. ______
Compensation actually received Rs. ______ Rs. ______
Prior objection filed? Yes / No ________
Title litigation pending? ________ ________

A clear chart often reveals whether the case is actually:

  • a clerical-payment error;
  • an apportionment dispute;
  • a genuine title dispute;
  • a fraud case;
  • a mutation mismatch.

Standard Representation — NHAI / Section 3H(4)

BEFORE THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR LAND ACQUISITION
[CALA / DISTRICT / NATIONAL HIGHWAY PROJECT]

Subject: Objection regarding wrongful disbursement/apportionment of compensation and request for reference under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Sir/Madam,

I am a lawful owner/co-sharer/person interested in the acquired land described below:

Mauza:
Thana No.:
Khata No.:
Khesra/Plot No.:
Total Acquired Area:
Award No.:
Project/National Highway:

My title/share arises from:

________________________________________.

I am legally entitled to ______ share in the acquired property and consequential compensation.

However, I have learnt that compensation amounting to Rs. ______ has been paid/released entirely or partly in favour of Shri/Smt. ______.

The said payment does not correctly reflect my lawful title/share.

My claim is supported by:

1. ______________________;
2. ______________________;
3. ______________________;
4. ______________________;
5. ______________________.

A genuine dispute therefore exists regarding:

(a) the person/persons to whom compensation is payable; and/or

(b) apportionment of the compensation amount.

I therefore respectfully request the Competent Authority to:

(i) record my claim and objection;

(ii) place the complete award and disbursement record on file;

(iii) refrain from disbursing any remaining compensation to the rival claimant pending adjudication;

(iv) refer the dispute to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956;

(v) transmit the relevant acquisition, award, title-claim and payment records with the reference; and

(vi) take consequential action regarding payment/restitution/recovery in accordance with the final determination of the competent Court.

The present objection is submitted without prejudice to all other statutory, civil and constitutional remedies available to me.

Date:
Place:

Name:
Address:
Mobile:
Signature:

Standard Representation — RFCTLARR Act, 2013

To,
The District Magistrate-cum-Collector /
District Land Acquisition Officer
District __________, Bihar

Subject: Objection regarding wrongful payment/apportionment of land-acquisition compensation and request for statutory reference under Sections 64/76 read with Section 77 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

Sir/Madam,

I am a person interested/lawful title holder/co-sharer in respect of the acquired land described as:

Mauza:
Thana No.:
Khata No.:
Khesra/Plot No.:
Acquired Area:
Land Acquisition Case No.:
Award No.:

My lawful title/share is ______ and arises from __________________.

However, the compensation relating to my title/share has been paid/recorded in favour of Shri/Smt. ______.

I dispute the said entitlement/apportionment.

The claim involves determination of:

1. the person lawfully entitled to compensation;

2. the respective shares of the persons interested;

3. the legality of the disbursement already made; and

4. consequential payment/restitution in accordance with law.

I therefore request that:

(a) the dispute be referred to the appropriate Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority in accordance with Sections 64 and/or 76 of the Act, as applicable;

(b) any undistributed compensation remain protected pending adjudication;

(c) the complete award, payment and title-claim records be transmitted to the Authority;

(d) Section 77 be applied in accordance with law, including the statutory consequences concerning compensation received by a person who is ultimately found not lawfully entitled thereto; and

(e) a reasoned order be communicated to me forthwith.

This representation/application is being submitted without prejudice to all other available remedies and within the applicable limitation to the extent relevant.

Date:
Place:

Name:
Address:
Mobile:
Signature:

Possible Patna High Court Prayer — National Highway Case

It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) issue an appropriate writ/order/direction commanding the respondent Competent Authority for Land Acquisition to consider the petitioner's claim regarding compensation payable in respect of Khata No. ______, Khesra No. ______, Mauza ______;

(b) direct the Competent Authority to refer the dispute regarding entitlement/apportionment of compensation to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in terms of Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956;

(c) quash any order whereby the Competent Authority has itself finally adjudicated a seriously disputed title/apportionment claim beyond the jurisdiction contemplated under Section 3H(4);

(d) pending adjudication, restrain further disbursement of any undistributed compensation relating to the disputed land;

(e) direct production/preservation of the complete award, apportionment and disbursement record;

(f) direct that consequential payment, adjustment, restitution and/or recovery be carried out in accordance with the final determination of the competent Court;

(g) pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Possible Patna High Court Prayer — 2013 Act Case

It is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

(a) issue an appropriate writ/order/direction commanding the District Magistrate-cum-Collector/District Land Acquisition Officer to process the petitioner's statutory claim regarding entitlement/apportionment of compensation in respect of the acquired land;

(b) direct reference of the dispute to the competent Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority under Sections 64 and/or 76 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, as applicable;

(c) quash the rejection/non-consideration of the petitioner's request for statutory reference, if found contrary to the Act;

(d) direct preservation/deposit of any undistributed disputed compensation in accordance with Section 77;

(e) direct the competent authority to place before the adjudicatory Authority the complete award, title documents, apportionment statement and payment/disbursement record;

(f) direct that upon determination of the person lawfully entitled, consequential payment/recovery/restitution be implemented in accordance with Section 77 and other applicable provisions of law;

(g) pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

When Is the Case Strong?

Fact Indicative Effect
Registered deed clearly establishes title before acquisition Strong.
Civil decree establishes share Very strong subject to finality and applicability.
Recipient admits your co-ownership Strong apportionment case.
Authority admits payment error Strong administrative case.
You objected before payment Strong procedural factor.
100% paid to one co-owner despite admitted joint ownership Strong Section 3H(4)/apportionment issue.
Your title rests only on oral assertion Weak.
Mutation is only in rival claimant's name but you have registered title Mutation alone is not conclusive; title requires adjudication.
Partition/title suit already pending Shows genuine title dispute; writ court may avoid deciding merits directly.
Several rival wills/sale deeds exist Likely requires detailed adjudication.
You waited many years without explanation May create limitation/laches complications.

Compensation Recovery Decision Flowchart

Wrong payment → prove title/share → identify acquisition statute → activate correct statutory reference → obtain entitlement decision → implement payment/recovery.

Plain-text alternative: Obtain award and payment record → establish title/share → identify National Highways Act or RFCTLARR Act → raise Section 3H(4) or Sections 64/76/77 claim → obtain statutory reference → adjudicate person entitled/apportionment → seek consequential payment and recovery.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. NHAI paid all compensation to my brother although I am also a co-owner. Have I lost my claim?

Not automatically. Sikandar Singh is directly relevant: Patna High Court directed invocation of Section 3H(4) where a petitioner claimed half the compensation but alleged that 100% had been paid to another co-owner.

2. Who decides an NHAI compensation ownership dispute?

A genuine Section 3H(4) dispute is to be referred by the Competent Authority to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, ordinarily the District Judge.

3. Can CALA itself decide a complicated title dispute?

Its Section 3H(3) function does not replace the Section 3H(4) reference mechanism once a genuine dispute as to apportionment or entitlement arises.

4. Is Section 3G arbitration the correct remedy?

Not where the principal dispute is “who gets the money”. Section 3G arbitration principally concerns compensation amount; Section 3H(4) concerns entitlement/apportionment.

5. The other person has mutation in his name. Does that prove he owns the compensation?

No. Mutation/revenue entries are not, by themselves, conclusive proof of title. The actual title documents and rights of the parties must be examined.

6. My registered sale deed is older than the acquisition but the previous owner received compensation. What should I do?

Obtain the award/disbursement record and immediately raise your title claim under the applicable acquisition statute, supported by the registered conveyance and property identity documents.

7. What happens under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act?

Sections 64 and 76 provide mechanisms for disputes concerning the person entitled and apportionment, while Section 77 regulates payment/deposit where title or apportionment is disputed.

8. Does Section 77 help if the money has already been paid?

Yes. Section 77 expressly preserves the liability of a person who received compensation to pay it to the person lawfully entitled.

9. Can I directly file a writ asking Patna High Court to declare me owner?

Where title/share is seriously disputed, the High Court may prefer the statutory adjudicatory forum rather than conduct a full title trial under Article 226.

10. Can Patna High Court direct the Collector to make the reference?

Yes. Kashinath Mishra in 2026 is a significant example where the Division Bench directed referral of the compensation/apportionment dispute under the 2013 Act.

11. What if compensation has not yet been released?

Immediately lodge the title/apportionment objection and seek protection of the disputed amount so that payment is not made to one claimant before adjudication.

12. What if I already have a final partition decree?

A final decree identifying your title/share can materially strengthen the claim. The exact decree, acquired property identity and finality of the decree should nevertheless be verified.

13. What if a partition suit is still pending?

That demonstrates a genuine title/share dispute. The acquisition authority ordinarily should not conclusively determine complex partition rights through a summary payment decision.

14. Can I recover interest also?

Interest and other consequential monetary relief depend upon the statute, delay, adjudication and the party legally responsible. They should be separately pleaded rather than assumed.

AI-Search Quick Answer

Question: NHAI or Government paid my land-acquisition compensation to another co-sharer or recorded owner. Can the real title holder recover it?

Answer: Yes, subject to proof of title/share and the applicable acquisition law. Under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, a genuine dispute about who is entitled to compensation or how it should be apportioned must be referred by CALA to the Principal Civil Court, ordinarily the District Judge. Patna High Court applied this route in Sikandar Singh where the petitioner alleged that 100% compensation had been paid to another co-owner. Under the RFCTLARR Act, Sections 64, 76 and 77 govern entitlement/apportionment disputes, and Section 77 expressly preserves the wrongful recipient's liability to pay the person lawfully entitled.

Key Takeaway

Do not allow the case to be reduced to:

“His name was recorded, so Government paid him.”

The correct questions are:

Who legally owned the acquired land? What was each person's lawful share? Who did the award recognise? Who actually received the compensation? Was a title/apportionment dispute already known? Which statutory forum must determine entitlement?

For National Highways:

TITLE/APPORTIONMENT DISPUTE → SECTION 3H(4) → CALA REFERENCE → PRINCIPAL CIVIL COURT / DISTRICT JUDGE.

For acquisition under the 2013 Act:

TITLE/APPORTIONMENT DISPUTE → SECTIONS 64 / 76 / 77 → COLLECTOR → LARR AUTHORITY.

And most importantly:

PAYMENT TO THE WRONG PERSON DOES NOT BY ITSELF CREATE TITLE IN THE COMPENSATION.

The claimant should act quickly, prove the chain of title and exact share, obtain the complete award/disbursement record and activate the correct statutory adjudication mechanism.

Professional Consultation and Land-Acquisition Compensation Litigation

Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh handles property and writ matters involving NHAI/National Highway acquisition, Government acquisition, compensation, title and co-sharer disputes, Section 3H(4) references, apportionment, mutation discrepancies, joint-family property, measurement and Article 300A issues, subject to the facts, jurisdiction and accepted professional engagement.

Supreme Court of India | Patna High Court | Allahabad High Court at Prayagraj | Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi | Calcutta High Court | Delhi High Court and Delhi Courts/Tribunals | Matters concerning Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh | Multiple District Courts

Phone: 8294431232
Email: ankitsingh.legum@gmail.com
Website: advocateankitkumarsingh.in

A wrong-compensation-recipient dispute should ordinarily be reviewed from the complete title chain, genealogy/partition papers, acquisition notification, award, apportionment statement, disbursement record, mutation/jamabandi, prior objections and pending title proceedings.

No declaration of title, compensation recovery, interest, interim restraint or other judicial outcome can be guaranteed.

Official and Leading Legal Sources

  • Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. District Magistrate, Mau & Ors.
    2023 INSC 606
    Civil Appeal No.5107 of 2022
    Supreme Court of India, 7 July 2023.
    Section 3H(4) — apportionment/person entitled to compensation to be determined by Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.
  • Sikandar Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
    CWJC No.5862 of 2018
    Patna High Court, 9 February 2023.
    Petitioner claimed half the compensation; alleged 100% had been paid to another co-owner; CALA directed to refer under Section 3H(4).
    Patna High Court judgment
  • Nand Kishore Prasad Singh @ Kishori Prasad Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
    CWJC No.3742 of 2014
    Patna High Court, 20 May 2016.
    Rival ownership claim — liberty to seek Section 3H(4) reference.
  • Md. Hasnain v. Union of India
    CWJC No.9419 of 2025
    Patna High Court, 19 June 2025.
    Compensation entitlement controversy involving joint-family property/another family recipient.
  • Kashinath Mishra v. State of Bihar
    LPA No.111 of 2025 in CWJC No.19752 of 2024
    Patna High Court Division Bench
    26 February 2026.
    Sections 76/51 RFCTLARR Act — Collector directed to refer the compensation entitlement/apportionment dispute to the Authority.
  • Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
    2021 SCC OnLine SC 802.
    Supreme Court of India.
    Mutation/revenue entries do not by themselves confer title.
  • National Highways Act, 1956
    Sections 3G and 3H.
  • Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
    Sections 51, 63, 64, 75, 76 and 77.
    India Code
  • Patna High Court – Official Website
    Patna High Court

Related Legal Research

For the broader framework governing Railway, National Highway and Bihar State Government acquisition, compensation, possession and Article 300A remedies, see:

Railway, NHAI & State Government Land Acquisition in Bihar Without Notice or Show-Cause? Can Patna High Court Grant Stay Against Demolition, Possession or Construction? 2026

Add Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh as a Preferred Source on Google

Readers who want to see more legal research, court updates, cyber law, PMLA, ED, criminal-law and litigation content from Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh can add advocateankitkumarsingh.in as a Preferred Source on Google.

Add advocateankitkumarsingh.in as a Preferred Source on Google

Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information. Compensation entitlement depends upon the acquisition statute, title documents, succession/partition rights, acquisition schedule, award, apportionment record, disbursement history and pending litigation. A mutation or jamabandi entry is not automatically conclusive ownership. Where title or shares are genuinely disputed, the competent statutory/civil adjudicatory forum must determine entitlement. Limitation should be checked immediately, particularly for references under the RFCTLARR Act.