IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20451 of 2011 1. Sthal Pariwartan Morcha, Barahiya, Village- Barahiya, District- Lakhisarai, 2. Prem Kumar Singh, President, Sthal Pariwartan Morcha, Barahiya, son of Ranbir Singh, resident of Village-Barahiya, Police Station-Barahiya, District- Lakhisarai, 3. Diwakar Narain Sharma, son of Chandra Mouleshwar Singh, resident of Village-Gangasarai, Police Station-Barahiya, District-Lakhisarai, 4. Manoj Kumar Singh, son of Ram Naresh Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Barahiya, Police Station- Barahiya, District- Lakhisarai, 5. Krishna Prasad Singh, son of late Nawal Kishore Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Barahiya, Police Station-Barahiya, District- Lakhisarai… …..Petitioners Versus 1. The Union Of India, 2. National Highway Authority of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, New Delhi, 3. The District Magistrate-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Special Land Acquisition Officer-cum Competent Authority, Lakhisarai, 4. National Highway Authority of India through its Manager Technical at Begusarai, 5. The Deputy Collector of Land Reforms, Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai, 6. Project Director, PIU, Begusarai… …..Respondents …………. For the Petitioners : Mr. K.N. Choubey, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ambar Nath Banerjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Satish Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the N.H.A : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Ranjan Kr. Singh, Advocates ……………………… 2 01.12.2011 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction with regard to 2 description of respondent no.3 and also to implead Project Director, PIU, Begusarai as respondent no. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and the respondent-National Highway Authority. Petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 21.10.2011 issued by the Manager, Technical, respondent no.4 to the District Magistrate-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Lakhisarai, respondent no.3, directing to reject the objection of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the statutory provision as contained under sub-section (1) of Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956, (hereinafter referred to be as “the Act”) petitioners have filed objection against the acquisition of proposed 30 meters widening of National Highway-80 passing through village Barahiya and Gangasarai. It is submitted that by Annexure-1, an order has been passed by respondent no.4 directing the competent authority to dispose of the objection. However, from plain reading of Annexure-1, it appears that this is a letter in reply to the earlier letter dated 13.10.2011 by the District Land Acquisition Officer, 3 Lakhisarai expressing views on the objection of certain villagers with regard to the construction of National Highway-80 and stating that the alignment taken by the authority is the best possible alignment. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since this may affect the petitioners’ prospect in the objection case filed under sub-section (1) of Section 3C of Act, the petitioners have a right to give reply thereof so that the petitioners views may also be considered by the competent authority. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that by writing a letter dated 13.10.2011, the competent authority has abdicated its jurisdiction by seeking direction from the National Highway Authority. This submission may be attractive, however, if certain objection is raised by the villagers with regard to acquisition under sub-section (1) of Section 3C of the Act, it would be very difficult to accept that the competent authority would not have any power to seek views of the National Highway Authority which is proposing to construct the concerned National Highway, specially in view of the fact that if the 4 objections of the villagers is allowed then that may compel the authority to look for some other alignment for the proposed construction. However, in view of the fact that the letter dated 13.10.2011 has not been brought on record, it would not be proper for this Court to record a positive finding in this matter. Learned counsel next pointed out that no opportunity of hearing has been accorded after issuance of Annexure-1. In above view of the matter, this writ application is being disposed of with a liberty granted to the petitioners to submit their views on the points raised in the letter dated 21.10.2011 by respondent no.4 before the competent authority and all other points which have been raised in this writ application if the objection raised by the petitioners has not been disposed of as yet. In case, objections have been disposed of by passing certain order which is yet to be communicated to the petitioners, in that case, it would be open for the petitioners to challenge the same in a properly constituted proceeding and if the objection of the petitioners have not been disposed of as yet then let 5 the same be disposed of by a reasoned order in accordance with law. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)