ORDER Heard. 2. The present writ application is directed against the order dated 24.4.2004 passed by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas acting as the 'competent authority' in terms of National Highways Act, 1956. 3. The sole private respondent has appeared and has been heard. 4. State has filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit and National Highways Authorities, who are made party, subsequently, have also appeared and filed a counter affidavit. 5. The controversy in the present writ application relates to the jurisdiction of the 'Competent authority' to deal with matters of payment of compensation after the money has been paid over to the claimants. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and with their consent this writ application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 7. The short point is that National Highways Authorities required certain lands in the district of Rohtas for National Highways passing through the said district. They made requisition and on money being calculated and notified to them they deposited the said amount with 'the competent authority'. Pursuant to notification of acquisition issued under National Highways Act, 1956, persons were invited, claims received and settled. Sometime thereafter respondent no. 3, the sole private respondent filed an application before 'the competent authority' claiming interest in compensation, which was granted to the petitioner and on this the competent authority noticed to the petitioner and then passed the impugned order directing the petitioner to return half of the compensation amount received which would be then given to the respondent no. 3. This order dated 24.4.2004 was passed in Case No. 6(1) of 2002-03. 8. Mr. S.K. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that from reading the scheme of Section 3G, 3H and 31 of the National Highways Act. 1956. it is clear that the claim for apportionment of compensation to be paid, can only be considered in terms of Section 3H(3) and 3H(4) of the Act and once compensation is paid then 'the competent authority' becomes functus officio and thereafter any person raising any claim dwelling upon apportionment of compensation could not approach 'the competent authority'. thereunder but his remedy then would be to go in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. thereunder but his remedy then would be to go in the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. National Highways Act, 1956 is a central legislation and by virtue of Section 3J, it has been provided that the provision of Land Acquisition Act shall not apply to an acquisition under this Act. Section 3A of the Act confers power on the Central Government to notify for acquisition of lands required for the buildings, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway. The said notification is to be published in two local newspapers one of which will be in local language. By virtue of Section 3B the Central Government or a person authorised would have an authority thereafter to enter upon and survey such land. A right to object as against proposed acquisition is under Section 3C, which is to be done within twenty one days from the date of publication of notification under Section 3A. Such objection has to be made to 'the competent authority, who shall hear such objection in terms of Section 3C(2) and after such enquiry, as it deems think necessary, pass orders thereon, which orders are final in nature. Once such an order is made in terms of Section 3B, a declaration is made with regard to acquisition, which declaration has to be made within one year of the notification issued under Section 3A of the Act. Once such a declaration is made then the land contemplated, vests in the Central Government free from incumbrances. This is followed by Section 3G wherein compensation is determined by the competent authority and it is specifically provided that before determining the amount of compensation, the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a local language inviting claims from all persons interested in the lands to be acquired. 10. In respect of compensation, the competent authority is to hear and decide and if the parties are not agreeable then the matter is to be referred to Arbitration for determination of the compensation to be paid and sub-section (2) of Section 3G deals the principle on which the compensation has to be calculated. Thereafter deals Section 3H of the Act, which makes it mandatory for deposition of the compensation amount by Central Government before the competent authority, as compensation determined. Thereafter deals Section 3H of the Act, which makes it mandatory for deposition of the compensation amount by Central Government before the competent authority, as compensation determined. This has to be done before the Central Government takes physical possession of the land, sub-section (2) of Section 3H then authorises the competent authority to pay the amount to persons entitled thereto. Sub-section (3) of Section 3H and sub-section (4) thereof are crucial for the present case and are quoted hereunder : "3H(2) As soon as may be after the amount has been deposited under subsection (1), the competent authority shall on behalf of the Central Government pay the amount to the person or persons entitled thereto. (3) Where several persons claim to be interested in the amount deposited under sub-section (1), me competent authority shall determine the persons who in its opinion are entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them." 11. A reference to the above two subsections of Section 3H would show that where several persons claimed to be interested in the amount deposited under subsection (1), the competent authority shall determine the person's/persons' entitlement. It would thus be seen that no sooner money is deposited by the Central Government to the competent authority, the competent authority has to decide as to whom the money is to be paid. If there are several claimants then he is authorised to determine the claims which would necessarily amount to an exercise of quasi-judicial power. While doing so, the authority would have power of civil court in terms of. Section 31 of the Act but while doing so the legislature thought it that the competent authority may not act all times be equipted to deal controversy in cases of apportionment. There may be complex question of fact or law and, as such, sub-section (4) of Section 3H provides that if there is a dispute then the competent authority shall refer the dispute for the decision of the competent civil court. 12. It would thus be seen from the aforesaid two sub-sections of Section 3H, two things would be clear, firstly, such an adjudicatory process has to be taken while the money is still with the competent authority becuase it relates to decision as to who is entitled thereto, secondly, if there is a dispute with regard to apportionment, the same shall have to be referred to the civil court. It would thus be seen that the jurisdiction to deal with issue ends with payments having been made or there being a dispute, which is then required to be settled by the civil court. 13. In other words, where rightly or wrongly payment has been made to a claimant, the competent authority, become functus officio as he has no money left to distribute and thirdly even if a dispute is raised then he has to refer the dispute to the civil court. Thus once payment is made then if there is any dispute with regard to apportionment, the only remedy is to approach competent civil court and get a decision in that regard. 14. In the present case, it is clear that various notices were issued from time to time but apparently at that stage no objection was raised. Counsel for respondent no. 3 states that respondent no. 3 was the widow of the younger brother of the petitioner having only one girl child and one son. She was not aware of the proceedings. She could not lodge her claim in time and wrongly the petitioner took the entire claim money in which was legally entitled for half share but as no objection at the appropriate time was raised by her, she has been rightly ordered to be paid half amount by asking the petitioner to refund half• amount already received. In the scheme that I have noted above, this relief could not have been granted to respondent no. 3. May be that respondent no. 3 was correct but the jurisdiction of the competent authority ceased. No sooner payments were made by him he becomes functus officio as reopening of such matters is not contemplated under the provision of the Act. It is always open to respondent no. 3 to go to competent civil court and get her right established or a wrong committed by the petitioner established and relief taken but permitting this to be done by the competent authority would be permitting him to act de hors the provision of the Act. The competent authority has no inherent Power. He is a statutory authority whose life is limited in time and once payments are made his right would cease and he become functus officio. He cannot revive a dead proceeding. 15. I hold accordingly. The competent authority has no inherent Power. He is a statutory authority whose life is limited in time and once payments are made his right would cease and he become functus officio. He cannot revive a dead proceeding. 15. I hold accordingly. In that view of :the matter the impugned order, Annexure 3, is liable to be quashed and is quashed as such giving liberty to respondent no. 3 to take such appropriate steps for enforcement of her alleged rights as she may deem fit and proper. 16. This application is accordingly allowed.