IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4949 of 2011 1. Ahilesh Kumar Mishra Son of Late Chandra Nand Mishra 2. Uma Devi W/o Shri Gokula Nand Mishra All R/o Vill- Kharia Basti, Ward no. 10, P.S. Araria, Dist. Araria (Bihar) ---- Petitioners. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Shipping Surface Transport and National Highway, New Delhi. 2. The Managing Director, National Highway Authority of India, New Delhi 3. The Project Director, National Highway Authority, Araria at Purnea, Bihar 4. The State of Bihar, through the District Magistrate, Araria, Dist. Araria 5. The Competent Officer, cum District Land Acquisition Officer, Araria, Collectorate, Araria. ---Respondents. For the petitioners : Mr.Amar Nath Singh, Advocate. For the N.H.A.I. : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Sr. Advocate. ----------- 04 02.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent State authorities and the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Petitioners have sought issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make payment of compensation amount to the petitioners in accordance with the award notified on 19.11.2010 with penal interest and cost. There is agreement at Bar that acquisitions of land in the present case were made in accordance with the provisions contained in the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’). There is no dispute that the land(s) of the petitioners have been acquired. Such acquisitions were made in the year 2005 for strengthening/widening of NH-57. There is also no dispute that possession of the land had already been taken over inasmuch as the widening process of the said Highway has already been completed. 2 Having noticed inordinate delay in preparation of award and payment of compensation, which according to the petitioners, were required to be paid at the time of taking possession of land in terms of the provisions of the Act, the petitioners approached this Court by filing writ petition bearing C.W. J.C. No. 14893 of 2010. The grievance of the petitioners in the said application is aptly reflected from the averments made in para 9 thereof which reads as under:- “9. That under Section 3 (A) of the Act, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Araria was appointed as the competent authority to determine the amount payable as compensation under the Act and the proceeding under section 3G of the Act for determination of compensation to the lands of the petitioner was initiated. That the petitioners appeared several times before the competent authority, submitted requisite papers & lastly filed a representation dated 13.05.2010 with regard to his claim for compensation but the same was not considered till today and no award was prepared in the name of the petitioners for the compensation amount.” Having heard the parties, this court by proceeding dated 08.09.2010 disposed of the said application in the following terms:- “I, therefore, direct that the petitioners should appear with a copy of this order within a period of six weeks before the Land Acquisition Officer, Araria who will examine the documents of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in this matter within a period of four months thereafter.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although the award in terms of the provisions contained under 3 Section 2G(1) of the Act has been made/notified wherein the amount of compensation has already been assessed but the payment required to be made to the land owner(s)/writ petitioner(s) has not been disbursed/made. This matter was taken up on 16.03.2011. On the request of the counsel representing the National Highway Authority ( for short Authority) the matter was adjourned observing as under:- “Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the National Highway Authority prays for adjournment enabling him to file a detailed counter affidavit. This Court at this stage observes that while filing counter affidavit, the authorities shall keep in focus all the relevant provisions of the National Highway Act 1956. Let such affidavit be filed within 04 weeks. State respondent, if so advised, shall also file counter affidavit within the aforesaid time.” On 25.04.2011, the matter was again taken up when learned counsel for the petitioners handed in a photo copy of the order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1312 of 2010 (Arun Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.) and prayed for disposal of the present case in the same terms. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondent. A counter affidavit, however, has been filed on behalf of the Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once an award has been prepared and issued in terms of Section 3G(1) of the Act the competent Authority is mandated under the 4 provisions of the Act to release/pay the said amount which is, as per the provisions of the Act , subject to determination of the compensation amount in terms of Section 3G (5). Referring to provisions contained in Section 3H (1) and (2), it is submitted that competent Authority has to pay the award amount before taking possession of the land. It is submitted that the award (Annexure-3) has already been prepared on 19.11.2010 under Section 3G(1) wherein the compensation amount payable to the writ petitioners is indicated and the petitioners are legally entitled to receive the same. It is further submitted that one Navkant Mishra in whose case award was also issued in similar manner has already been paid the compensation amount duly determined by the competent Authority. Learned counsel for the Authority, on the other hand, submits that there has been a change in the nature of land resulting in abnormal escalation of compensation amount as a result whereof the Authority in consultation with the State Government has constituted a six man committee for determination of nature of land. In this regard, he refers to the communication dated 21.01.2011 passed by the competent Authority as contained in Annexure-4. It is further submitted that under the provisions contained in Section 3C of the Act any such objection relating to nature/status of land could have been raised by the land owner(s) prior to issuance of award by the competent Authority. It is submitted that no such objection was raised under Section 3C (1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on 5 the other hand, submits that issue of compensation payable to the landholder(s) in terms of the provisions of the Act could not have been raised under Section 3C of the Act. He referred to the provisions of the said Act and submitted that the landholders at that stage could have raised objection only in respect of non utilization of the land claimed by them. It is submitted that going by the provisions contained under the Act the respondents are legally obliged to pay the compensation amount fixed under the award prepared by the competent Authority. Any amendment/alteration in the said amount can be made by resorting to the provision(s) contained under Section 3G (5). It is also submitted that in the case of one Sumitra Devi and others (C.W.J.C. no. 7565 of 2010) the payment of compensation has been made by the respondents although there was a change in the nature/use of land but in the case of the petitioners no such order has been passed. It appears that identical issue was raised in C.W.J.C. No. 1312 of 2010. This Court having considered the submissions of the parties directed for payment of the compensation amount as reflected in the award but subject to certain conditions. Having heard the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present application in the same terms by which C.W.J.C. No. 1312 of 2010 was disposed of. Accordingly, this Court directs that the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners as reflected from Annexure-3 be made in favour of the petitioners by the 6 respondents. Such payment shall be subject to the result of the steps/action taken by the respondents as reflected from the counter affidavit. While releasing payment in favour of the petitioners the competent Authority shall require the petitioners to execute bond(s) undertaking thereunder to refund the excess amount, if any, in terms of the compensation amount finally determined by the Authority under the Act. Petitioner shall also be called upon to offer valuable surety to the satisfaction of the competent Authority. No sooner the petitioners comply with the directions of the Authority, this Court expects the payment shall be made within 06 weeks therefrom. This Court, for the present is not delving into the rival submissions made by the parties with regard to legal status of the committee constituted by the Authority in consultation with the State Government. That aspect of the matter is left open. The application stands disposed of. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)