IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5432 of 2010 Ramdeo Sah Versus The Union Of India & Ors ----------- 3. 23.08.2011 Heard. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 & 3. The writ petition has been filed seeking compensation from the respondent authorities of the National Highway Authority of India i.e. respondent No. 2 & 3 for demolition of the structure situated at village Bakhari Nazir, P.O.+P.S. Mehsi, District-East Champaran for the purpose of construction of four lane of National Highway. It is admitted by learned counsel that the petitioner was not a title holder of plot in question but had a structure situated thereon and was running a line hotel. It is further contended that the said structure of the petitioner was removed for the purpose of construction of National Highway No. 28 passing through village Bakhari Nazir, P.S. Mehsi, District- East Champaran. Learned counsel in support of his contention of the structure situated over the piece of land which was used for the purpose of construction of National Highway No. 28 refers to a receipt issued by the National Highway Authority of India which clearly mentions the type of house as a residence. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and in which it is admitted that the details mentioned in Annexure-1 denotes 486 chainage situated on the right side of the road and the nature of occupant as a Squatter meaning thereby an encroacher. It is however, stated that during the 2 course of verification no structure of the petitioner was found at the chainage 486 and thus his name was not included in the list of persons affected by the construction of Highway. The respondents Nos. 2 & 3 have however, also admitted that even the Squatters, who did not have title to the plot, were taken care of under the Re-settlement Action Plan (‘RAP’ for short). It is thus canvassed that as during the course of verification no structure of the petitioner was found at the relevant place hence he was not entitled to any compensation. In paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that if the petitioner produces any paper with respect to his title over land, the respondent authorities of the National Highway Authority of India are ready to pay compensation. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents and having perused the material available on the records of the proceeding it manifests that the respondent authorities of the National Highway Authority of India have not entertained the claim of the petitioner primarily on the ground that during the course of verification no such construction as claimed by the petitioner, was found at the relevant site being 486 chainage. The authorities however at the same time have also accepted that even the Squatters over the piece of plots utilized by the respondents for the purpose of construction of the National Highway were also compensated under the settlement action plan. The only dispute being whether or not there was a structure existing over the said piece of land as claimed by petitioner, situated at village Bakhari Nazir, District- East Champaran and utilized for the construction of National Highway. 3 The issue stands resolved by the certification given by the National Highway Authorities of India itself placed at Annexure-1 which admits the existence of a residence on the relevant plot at chainage of 486/350, on the date of issuance of the certificate i.e. 14.02.2003. In view of the certificate given by National Highway Authorities of India itself placed at Annexure-1 it becomes immaterial whether or not there was any structure found subsequently, during the course of verification. The respondent Nos. 2 & 3 have admitted that they have also taken care of Squatters like the petitioner under the Re- settlement action plan. In that view of the matter, the petitioner also becomes entitled for the same treatment. Considering the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner in view of the document placed at Annexure-1 of the writ petition and pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production / receipt of a copy of this order. Saif (Jyoti Saran, J.)