JUDGMENT : A.J. DESAI, J. 1. By way of present petition filed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, by challenging the order dated 01.07.2020 passed by the Competent Authority, National Highway Authority of India and Deputy Collector appointed under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), has prayed as under: “(A) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate wir, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 01.07.2020 passed by respondent No. 1 directing to make payment in favour of respondent no. 2 as well as the order dated 01.07.2020 disbursing the amount of Rs. 1,13,85,138/- in favour of respondent No. 2 and thereby be further pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to recover the said amount and to deposit the same before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahuva, Bhavnagar in Special Civil Suit No. 9/2018 till the dispute of title is decided between the parties. (B) pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct respondent No. 1 to recover the amount of Rs. 1,13,85,138/- which is already disbursed vide order dated 01.07.2020 and to deposit the same before the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahuva, Bhavnagar in Special Civil Suit No. 9/2018 till the dispute of tile is decided between the parties. (C) to pass such other and further order/s as may be just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.” 2. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents including the private respondent have appeared through the learned advocate. Respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit-in-reply dated 08.09.2020 and has opposed ground of any reliefs, as prayed for. 3. Case put forward by the petitioner in this petition is as under: 3.1 That the private respondent No. 2 and his family members were the owners of the land bearing Survey No. 252/P/1 admeasuring H. Are-Sq. mtrs. 1-90-00 (19000 sq. mtrs.) situated in the sim of town Mahuva, District Bhavnagar and for the purpose of construction of Bhavnagar by-pass road, the said land was divided into two parts i.e. Eastern side and Western side. It is the case of the petitioner that the land on the Eastern side of the road admeasuring of 1.21 gunthas (around 7344 sq. mtrs.). mtrs.) situated in the sim of town Mahuva, District Bhavnagar and for the purpose of construction of Bhavnagar by-pass road, the said land was divided into two parts i.e. Eastern side and Western side. It is the case of the petitioner that the land on the Eastern side of the road admeasuring of 1.21 gunthas (around 7344 sq. mtrs.). The said land was sold to the petitioner by the father of respondent No. 2 by executing conveyance deed on 07.11.2007. It is the case of the petitioner that the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record as far as land bearing Survey No. 252/P/1 is concerned. It is further case of the petitioner that he was in possession of the entire land. Out of the said land, The petitioner converted the land admeasuring 3504 sq. mtrs. into non-agricultural use and he is running the factory on the said land. In the year 2016, another parcel of land admeasuring 2667 sq. mtrs. was acquired by the respondent authority for the construction of national highway and accordingly, compensation was paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner remained the owner of the remaining land admeasuring 1173 sq. mtrs. 3.2. When the petitioner found that there is some mistakes in mentioning the measurement of the land in the sale-deed executed in the year 2007. He filed Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 2018 in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahuva and prayed for decree of declaration that he had purchased the entire land admeasuring 7344 sq. mtrs. He has also prayed for specific performance against the private respondent to execute additional and/or supplementary sale-deed with regard to the remaining land admeasuring 1173 sq. mtrs. The said suit is pending before the concerned Court. 3.3. It is the case of the petitioner that as far as Notification under Section 3(A) of the Act came to be issued by the respondent-competent authority on 09.01.2014, which was published in the newspaper on 28.01.2014. Thereafter, Notification under Section 3(D) of the Act came to be published in the newspaper on 26.02.2015. 3.4. The petitioner raised objections at the time of determination of amount payable as compensation provided under Section 3(H) of the Act. The Award came to be passed on 29.12.2018. Thereafter, Notification under Section 3(D) of the Act came to be published in the newspaper on 26.02.2015. 3.4. The petitioner raised objections at the time of determination of amount payable as compensation provided under Section 3(H) of the Act. The Award came to be passed on 29.12.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of declaration of the award, the details of the land referred in Schedule-A wherein the name of the petitioner was reflected as well as it is specifically reflected that some disputes are going between the parties. Thereafter, the amount was deposited by the authority established under the Act with respondent No. 1. 3.5. Pursuant to notice issued under Section 3(H)(2) of the Act came to be issued to all concerned including the petitioner by the respondent No. 1. The petitioner raised objections; however, without considering the objections raised by the petitioner and referring the matter under Section (3)(H)(4), the impugned order has been passed and the amount has been deposited in the bank and subsequently, disbursed the same to respondent No. 2. 3.6. Hence, this petition. 4. Mr. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, by taking us to the sale-deed, would submit that the entire land admeasuring Acre-1 and 21-Gunthas was purchased by the petitioner from the father of the respondent No. 2; however, at one place, through over site and bona-fide mistake, instead of land admeasuring 7344 sq. mtrs. which the petitioner had purchased, only the land admeasuring 6171 sq. mtrs. has been referred. He would further submit that though the petitioner was in possession of the property in question and converted part of the land into non-agricultural use as well as way back in year 2016, the compensation towards 2667 sq. mtrs. of the land, which came to be acquired by the Highways Authority, was paid by the authority, no objection was raised by the present respondent or his father. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner would further submit that when the stage of disbursement of the amount arose and when the notice under Section 3H of the Act, 1956 was issued at the instance of the respondent No. 1, he immediately raised objection for payment of any compensation to any other persons since he had become owner of the entire land. By taking us through the award in question, he would submit that the Land Acquisition Officer has specifically mentioned about the dispute pending between the petitioner and the respondents, which has not been taken into consideration by the authority. By taking us through the order dated 01.07.2020 passed by the respondent No. 1. he would submit that when the specific issue was raised and the same was brought to the notice about the pendency of the suit, the authority ought to have referred the case under Sub-Section (4) of Section 3H of the Act and ought not to have paid the amount to the respondent No. 2. By taking us through the provision of Sub-Section (4) of Section 3H of the Act, he would submit that it was the duty of the Deputy Collector that when the dispute arise with regard to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, it is mandatory for the competent authority to refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, therefore, the order is illegal and requires to be quashed and set aside. He would further submit that apart from this aspect, the order has been passed on 01.07.2020 rejecting the claim put forward by the petitioner for referring to the Court, but huge amount of Rs. 1,13,85,138/- (Rupees One Crore Thirteen Lacs Eighty Five Thousand One Hundred Thirty Five Only) was deposited in a bank by the Land Acquisition Officer and the same was disbursed to the respondent No. 2 on the same day and therefore, the conduct of the authority as well as the private respondents clears doubt of the same and on that ground also, the order is required to be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner would further submit that the boundaries referred in the sale-deed covers the entire land. There is no mentioned in the sale-deed that any part of land bearing Survey No. 252/P/1 is situated in any of the four directions and therefore, it is amply clear that the petitioner has purchased the entire parcel of land. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision in case of Shah Mahedrakumar Nagindas vs. State of Gujarat, 1983 GLH 394 . In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision in case of Shah Mahedrakumar Nagindas vs. State of Gujarat, 1983 GLH 394 . He would submit that it has been held that if there conflict between recital as regards to area and description of boundaries, the authority should prefer the description of boundaries referred in the conveyance deed. He, therefore, would submit that the authority would have awarded entire amount to the petitioner instead of transferring to the private respondent. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be allowed. He would further submit that the entire amount, which was deposited in the particular bank, has been disbursed to the private respondent and therefore, while allowing the petition, the respondent may be directed to deposit the entire amount before the concerned Civil Court and further direction may been issued that the amount shall be paid at the end of completion of dispute pending between the parties. In support of his submission, learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Girishchandra Mahendraprasad Pathak vs. The Collector, Vadodara dated 17.03.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9093 of 2020. 7. On the other hand, Mr. A.M. Dagli, learned advocate appearing for the private respondent, would submit that it is an undisputed fact that originally the entire land was belonged to the private respondent and parcel of the land was sold to the petitioner. He would submit that the petitioner is trying to take advantage of description referred in the sale-deed; however, if the sale-deed is closely read over, it has been categorically stated that land admeasuring 6171 sq. mtrs. is sold to the petitioner. Even, in the schedule referred in the sale-deed itself, the measurement of the land admeasuring 6171 sq. mtrs. is referred and the remaining land admeasuring 1173 sq. mtrs. is of ownership of the private respondent and therefore, the authority has rightly diverted the money in the account of the private respondent. He would submit that the sale-deed is of the year 2007 and when the question of payment of huge compensation arose, the petitioner woke up from the slumber and filed a suit for clarification in the nature of declaratory decree in the year 2018 i.e. after 11 years. He would submit that the sale-deed is of the year 2007 and when the question of payment of huge compensation arose, the petitioner woke up from the slumber and filed a suit for clarification in the nature of declaratory decree in the year 2018 i.e. after 11 years. He would submit that the entire parcel of the land is referred in the revenue record of land bearing Survey No. 252/P/1 and therefore, the names of all the persons including the private respondent have been referred as occupier and that automatically would not conclude that the petitioner has purchased the land admeasuring 7344 sq. mtrs. By taking us through the revenue record of the land in question as well as the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the private respondent, he would submit that as and when the owner or subsequently, some legal heirs of the owners had expired during the interregnum period i.e. during 2007 to 2011, names of legal heirs of all those persons, who expired, have been mutated in the revenue record of the land bearing Survey No. 252/P/1. He would further submit that even notice under Section 135(D) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code were issued to the private respondent; however, at no point of time, any objections were raised about mutation of the names of the legal heirs for the entire parcel of land. He would submit that the suit is pending in the competent Civil Court and no relief, whatsoever in nature, has been granted by any competent Civil Court in favour of the petitioner or against present private respondent or all those persons, who are legal heirs, to whom the amount has been disbursed. He would further submit that the authority has rightly discarded the case put forward by the respondent in absence of any material. He would submit that even the rights with regard to so-called ownership of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring 1173 sq. mtrs. is yet to be decided by the competent Civil Court, after leading the evidence. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed. 8. Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 3-National Highway Authority, would submit that the work of determining compensation payable for acquisition of land and the disbursement thereof to persons entitled to receive such compensation is he domain and responsibility of the Competent Authority. He, therefore, would submit that the petition be dismissed. 8. Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 3-National Highway Authority, would submit that the work of determining compensation payable for acquisition of land and the disbursement thereof to persons entitled to receive such compensation is he domain and responsibility of the Competent Authority. The National Highway Authority of India has as such no role to play in the statutory function of disbursement of compensation to be performed by the Competent Authority. However, with a view to assist the Court, he would submit that provisions of sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 3-H of the National Highways Act have been a subject of judicial interpretation by several High Courts, including this Court. It has been consistently held by Courts that when several persons claim compensation, the Competent Authority has power and jurisdiction to record an opinion and determine the amount payable to each one of them. However, where the dispute is raised as to the very entitlement to receive whole or part of compensation by several persons, that is to say, if one or more person seeks compensation to the exclusion of other person or persons, then the Competent Authority must necessarily make a reference to the Civil Court as the Civil Court alone is competent to decide such dispute. Inviting the attention of the Court to the award, learned advocate would submit that the Competent Authority has noticed existence of a dispute concerning ownership or right over the land even at the time of making the award. Being conscious of pendency of such dispute the Competent Authority has actually issued notice to petitioner and private respondent calling upon both of them to produce documents evidencing their ownership over acquired land and thereby demonstrate their entitlement to receive the compensation. At this stage, both parties submitted their claims and contended that they alone should receive the entire compensation to the exclusion of other. He would submit that considering the nature of dispute raised by the parties before him, the Competent Authority ought to have adopted a “hands-off” approach and made a reference to the Civil Court. At this stage, both parties submitted their claims and contended that they alone should receive the entire compensation to the exclusion of other. He would submit that considering the nature of dispute raised by the parties before him, the Competent Authority ought to have adopted a “hands-off” approach and made a reference to the Civil Court. To conclude, he would submit that considering the fact that compensation has been disbursed in the year 2019, that all persons who have received compensation are not before the Court, that reasonable time has lapsed since the date of disbursement of compensation, that there is no allegation of practice of fraud by private respondent to receive compensation and that the dispute is purely of determination of right over the acquired land and that civil suit, still pending, it may not be proper to turn back the clock at this stage and that ends of justice would be met if a direction is given to persons who have received the compensation to furnish a declaration and undertaking that receipt of compensation by them is and shall be subject to final outcome of the civil proceeding. Alternatively, the pending civil suit itself may be treated as a reference made by the Competent Authority to the Civil Court and the parties be directed to abide by the outcome of the said proceeding. 9. Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No. 1-Competent Authority, would submit that at the instance of respondent No. 1, the amount has been disbursed. By taking us through impugned order, he would submit that the amount has been paid to the private respondent subject to outcome of the suit, which is filed at the instance of the petitioner, which was brought to the notice of the officer and therefore, the petition be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 11. The claim put forward by the petitioner is mainly on a conveyance deed dated 07.11.2007. The land was sold to the petitioner by the father of the respondent No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 2,42,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Forty Two Thousand Only). There is no specific value referred in the said sale-deed about the price of per sq. mtr. or per acre or per guntha. The land was sold to the petitioner by the father of the respondent No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 2,42,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Forty Two Thousand Only). There is no specific value referred in the said sale-deed about the price of per sq. mtr. or per acre or per guntha. It is also referred that on the Eastern side of the by-pass, land admeasuring Acre 1.21 gunthas belongs to whom and has agreed to sell the land at the rate stated herein-above. However, it is also referred that he has sold land admeasuring 6171 sq. mtrs. on right side of by-pass road. Even in the schedule, measurement of the land is referred as 6171 sq. mtrs. The order, by which, the authority has disbursed the amount to the private respondent is in question and when the suit is filed at the instance of present petitioner before the competent Civil Court claiming the ownership of the entire land admeasuring 7344 sq. mtrs. (Acre 1.21 Gunthas). This Court would be at loath to decide the said issue. Similarly, in our view, the authority ought not to have disbursed the amount in favour of the respondent No. 2, at that stage, when the authority was aware that some suit is pending. It is true that names of the private respondent and other several legal heirs have been referred in the revenue records on various dates in connection with the land bearing Survey No. 251/P; however, there is no specific mention of measurement of land as well as when the suit is pending before the competent Civil Court, the rights can be crystallized only by the competent Civil Court not by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the decision relied upon by Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner, in case of Shah Mahendrakumar Nagindas (Supra) is not discussed and dealt with by this Court in the present court. 12. As far as the decision in case of Girishchandra Mahendraprasad Pathak (supra) is concerned, this Court has directed to deposit on several grounds including grounds of fraud committed on the part of persons to whom amount was disbursed. It is not the case here and therefore, the above referred decision would be applicable to this case. 13. Section 3-H(4) of the Act reads as under: “3H. It is not the case here and therefore, the above referred decision would be applicable to this case. 13. Section 3-H(4) of the Act reads as under: “3H. Deposit and payment of amount: (1) *** *** *** (2) *** *** *** (3) *** *** *** (4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.” 14. In view of the above provision, the authority is bound to refer the dispute to the competent Civil Court of original jurisdiction when the dispute arises not only for the apportionment of amount or any part thereof or to whom the same it to be paid and therefore, in our view, the respondent authority should have refer the case to the competent Civil Court and ought not to have paid the amount to the respondent No. 2. We are of the opinion that when the civil suit is already filed at the instance of the petitioner and objections were raised by him, the matter is required to be referred as provided under Section 3H(4) of the Act to the competent Civil Court. 15. As far as the prayer made by the petitioner about depositing the compensation amount is clear, this Court would not like to accept the said relief as on several grounds including that the amount has been disbursed to number of legal heirs of the original land owner way back on 01.07.2020, the suit for declaration has been filed by the petitioner claiming rights over the entire property in the year 2018 relying upon the sale-deed of 2007 i.e. after a period of 11 years. Hence, we are of the opinion that the petition requires consideration and accordingly, the same is allowed in part. The order dated 01.07.2020 passed by the respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed and set aside. The authority is hereby directed to refer the case to the competent Civil Court under Section 3H(4) of the Act at the earliest. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.