The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a significant judgment delivered on April 10, 2025, held that an order passed by a civil court on a reference made under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, is appealable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The ruling was issued by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam in First Appeal No. 8 of 2025: Bolineni Srihari Rao vs Competent Authority and Special Collector (L.A.), National Highway-5, Ongole & Others.
Background
The appeal arose from a judgment and decree dated August 12, 2024, passed by the Principal District Judge, Prakasam, in LAOP No. 01 of 2014, a reference under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act. The dispute concerned compensation for land acquired for the formation of a bypass road near Ongole. The competent authority had referred the matter to the civil court to determine the rightful recipient of compensation for Ac.0.79 cents of land in Survey No.152/3B, Annavarappadu village.
The civil court declared the second respondent (now deceased) as the absolute owner and directed the compensation to be paid to his legal heirs (respondents 9 to 11). Aggrieved, the appellant—Bolineni Srihari Rao—filed the present appeal under Section 96 CPC.
Legal Issue
The principal question for consideration was whether a judgment rendered by a civil court under a reference made under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act is appealable under Section 96 CPC.
Arguments
For the Respondents:
Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, counsel for respondent No. 9, raised a preliminary objection, contending that the National Highways Act does not confer any right of appeal against orders passed under Section 3H(4), nor does it make Section 96 CPC applicable. He argued that the impugned judgment was in the nature of an award, not a decree, and hence not appealable.
For the Appellant:
Senior Advocate Sri V. S. R. Anjaneyulu, assisted by Ms. B. Sophia, submitted that the adjudication by the civil court on reference under Section 3H(4) conclusively determines the rights of the parties and satisfies the definition of a “decree” under Section 2(2) CPC. Thus, the decision is appealable under Section 96 CPC.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Bench held that the adjudication by the Principal Civil Court under Section 3H(4) involves determining rights of parties with respect to entitlement or apportionment of compensation and bears all characteristics of a decree. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Deep Chand v. Land Acquisition Officer, the Court observed that:
“Where a legal right of a party to a dispute has to be adjudicated by courts of ordinary civil jurisdiction, ordinary rules of civil procedure become applicable, and an appeal lies, if not otherwise provided for by such rules.”
The Court further noted that neither the National Highways Act nor the CPC expressly bars an appeal from such adjudication. It distinguished earlier rulings such as Bhoop Singh v. Kuria and emphasized that the nature of adjudication under Section 3H(4) is akin to that under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, which has been consistently held to be a decree appealable under Section 96 CPC.
The Court concluded:
“In our view, therefore, an adjudication by the Civil Court on a reference made to it under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act has all the attributes of a ‘decree’… In the absence of any prohibition under the National Highways Act or the CPC, such a decree is appealable under Section 96 CPC.”
The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the preliminary objection and held that the appeal filed under Section 96 CPC is maintainable.
Citation: First Appeal No. 8 of 2025, Bolineni Srihari Rao vs Competent Authority and Special Collector (L.A.), National Highway-5, Ongole & Others
