THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 21258 OF 2007 O R D E R: The petitioners are the owners of land in Sy.Nos.172 and 173 of Rameshwarpally village of Kamareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District, which is abutting the National Highway No.7. The National Highways Authority of India, the 1st respondent herein, has undertaken widening of the highway. A notiﬁcation, dated 27.4.2005, under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short “the Act”) was published, proposing to acquire the land of the petitioners and other adjoining lands. The petitioners raised an objection, and thereafter, the award enquiry was taken up, as provided for under Section 3-G of the Act. The Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, Kamareddy, the 2 nd respondent herein, is designated as the competent authority to pass award. The petitioners submitted the particulars of comparable sales and made a claim at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per sq.yard. According to them, their land was already part of the lay out, abutting Kamareddy town, and plots were also sold. The 2nd respondent passed an award dated 12.1.2007. He observed that though according to comparable sales, the market value of the land of the petitioners determined at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq.yard, the Joint Collector, Nizamabad, did not approve of it, and accordingly, awarded the compensation, at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per acre. It appears that he has also awarded solatium at 30% and additional market value at 12%. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the award passed by the 2nd respondent in every aspect. They contend, that under the Act, there is no provision for requiring the 2nd respondent to seek approval of any authority, before determining the market value, and though the record discloses that an extent of Acs.2-08 gts. of land was acquired, the compensation was restricted to Ac.1-37 gts. Certain other contentions are also urged. The 1st respondent ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit, admitting the factum of acquisition of the land of the petitioners. It is stated that the award was passed by 2nd respondent, in accordance with law, and that in case, the petitioners are not satisﬁed with the award, they have to seek remedy under sub-section (5) of Section 3-G of the Act. The 2nd respondent ﬁled counter aﬃdavit, supporting the award passed by him. He reiterated the fact that though he arrived at the conclusion that the market value is at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq.yard, he had awarded a diﬀerent amount, in view of the instructions received from the Joint Collector. It is also stated that he awarded solatium and additional market value, comparable to the one under the Land Acquisition Act. Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Act is a self-contained code, in every respect, and there was no basis for the 2nd respondent, to import the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act. He submits that the competent authority under Section 3-G of the Act, is conferred with independent and exclusive power, and there was no basis for the 2nd respondent, to seek instructions of the Joint Collector, much less to follow the same, and thereby to reduce the compensation. He also submits that the correct extent has not been indicated. Learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent, submits that in case the petitioner had any grievance vis- à-vis the award, be it as to the adequacy of compensation, or the extent of land, he has to work out his remedy under sub-section (5) of Section 3-G of the Act, before the competent authority, viz. the District Collector. The notiﬁcation published under Section 3-A of the Act discloses that an extent of about Ac.1-37 gts. of land in Sy.Nos.172/2, 173/2, 3 and 5 of Rameshwarpally village was notiﬁed for acquisition. The names of the owners are not mentioned in the notiﬁcation. Since the stage of notiﬁcation had crossed without any challenge, the petitioners have participated in the award enquiry before the 2nd respondent. They made a claim for compensation, at the rate of Rs.2,000/-, per sq.yard. The 2nd respondent, who happens to be the Revenue Divisional Oﬃcer, appears to have reeled under the impression that the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act, also applies to the one, under the National Highways Act. He imported two concepts from that Act, in passing the award. The ﬁrst is about the determination of compensation, in respect of the land of the petitioners. He collected 38 comparable sales, wherein the consideration is paid on square yard basis. He felt that the sale of plot of 400 sq.yards at Sl.No.66, vide document, dated 17.1.2005, is an immediately comparable sale. The consideration for the land covered by the document is Rs.80,000/- in all, and it works out to Rs.200/- per sq.yard. However, he reduced the compensation to Rs.80,000/- per acre, which was awarded for 3rd category of land. The reason is that the proposal made by him, was not approved by the Joint Collector. The relevant portion reads as under: “ . . . Therefore, the square yard sale at Sl.No.66 to an extent of 400 square yards registered vide document No.142/05, dated 17.1.2005 in Sy.Nos.172 & 173 for Rs.80,000/- which comes to Rs.200-00 per square yard. The same is considered and ﬁxed the market value at 200-00 per square yard for the area covered in the 3rd category of Rameshwarpally village of Kamareddy Mandal. But the Sq.yard has not been approved by the Joint Collector, Nizamabad at Rameshwarpally village. Hence, all the lands of Rameshwarpally village are treated under 4th category for awarding the compensation.” In this context, it needs to be observed that the concept of approval of the award by the appropriate government or other oﬃcer, as the government may authorize in relation to discretion, is only typical to the one, under the Land Acquisition Act. Section 11 (1) (3) of the Land Acquisition Act, contains a speciﬁc provision, to the eﬀect that no award shall be passed by the Collector, unless the prior approval of the concerned authority is obtained. In contrast, Section 3-G of the Act confers exclusive and absolute powers upon the competent authority to determine the compensation. His opinion is not subjected to approval by any other authority. Reeling under the impression that the procedure followed in respect of awards under the Land Acquisition Act applies to the one, under the National Highways Act also, the 2nd respondent reduced the amount of compensation, in respect of the land of the petitioners from Rs.200/- per square yard, to Rs.80,000/- per acre. Therefore, there is a clear illegality in this regard. Though the award is silent, as to the solatium and additional market value, in his counter aﬃdavit, the 2nd respondent stated that he awarded solatium at 30% and additional market value at 12%. Even though the petitioner can be said to be beneﬁciary to certain extent, this part of the award also cannot be sustained in law. Normally, this court would require the dissatisﬁed owners of the land, as regards quantum of compensation to work out their remedies under sub-section (5) of Section 3-G of the Act. However, when a patent illegality was committed by the competent authority, the petitioners cannot be required to avail the remedy of reference, which has got its own limitations. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the award dated 12.01.2007, insofar as it relates to the land of the petitioners, is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh award, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the National Highways Act, without any reference to the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. The fresh award shall be passed, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It shall be open to the petitioners to supplement their claim, be it as regards the market value, or extent of the land. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ 15th November 2008 Note: L.R. copies to be marked. (B/o) PAN