IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1312 of 2010 1. ARUN KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI CHANDRA NAND SINGH R/O VILL.- DHOLBAJJA, P.S.- FORBISGANJ, DISTT.- ARARIA 2. KAMINI SINGH W/O SRI ARUN KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL.- DHOLBAJJA, P.S.- FORBISGANJ, DISTT.- ARARIA 3. ABHAY KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI RANJAN KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL.- DHOLBAJJA, P.S.- FORBISGANJ, DISTT.- ARARIA 4. NAVIN KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI SIVANAND SINGH R/O VILL.- DHOLBAJJA, P.S.- FORBISGANJ, DISTT.- ARARIA 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 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, ROAD CONSTRUCTION DEPTT., BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER, DEPTT. OF REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DIRECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION, DEPTT. OF REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARARIA, DISTT.- ARARIA 8. THE COMPETENT OFFICER CUM DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, ARARIA, COLLECTORATE, ARARIA ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Advocate. For the Union of India : Mr. Gopesh Kumar, Advocate. For the N.H.A.I. : Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Senior Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rabindra Priyadarshi, A.C. to A.A.G.-III. ===== 5. 16.02.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and the counsel for the National Highway Authority of India. 2. The lands of the petitioners has been acquired for widening N.H. 57. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the competent authority to pay the amount which is determined under Section 3G (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to the petitioners. Such payment is being opposed by the counsel for the National Highway Authority of India as according to him arbitration proceeding has been initiated at the instance of the - 2 - Project Director and the payment be subject to the result of the arbitration proceeding. Counsel for the petitioners refutes such submission in view of the clear mandate of Sub-Section (2) of Section 3H of the Act which inter alia provides that the amount determined under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3G of the Act is to be paid to the land owner(s) no sooner the same is deposited before the competent authority on behalf of the Central Government. 3. Counsel for the National Highway Authority of India refutes the aforesaid submission as according to him the amount determined under Section 3G (1) of the Act is subject to the final determination of the amount by the arbitrator in terms of Sub-Section (5) of Section 3G of the Act. 4. Counsel for the petitioners refutes the aforesaid submission as according to him having taken possession of the lands in-question on 22.10.2009, which is evident from the award signed by the Project Director on 29.1.2010 the Project Director could not have invoked the arbitration proceeding subsequently. In this connection learned counsel for the National Highway Authority of India clarified that possession of the lands in-question was taken by the competent authority on 22.10.2009 and not by the National Highway Authority of India. The counter signature over the award was made by the Project Director on 29.1.2010 in compliance of the direction of this Court made on 28.1.2010 when this Court directed for payment of admitted amount to the land owners. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioners, State and the National Highway Authority of India, I am of the - 3 - view that the amount determined by the competent authority under Section 3G (1) of the Act be paid to the petitioners by the competent authority but such payment shall be subject to the result of the arbitration proceeding invoked by the Project Director. While releasing payment in favour of the petitioners the competent authority shall call upon the petitioners to execute a bond undertaking thereunder to refund the excess amount if any in terms of the amount determined by the arbitrator and for such purpose direct the petitioners to offer valuable surety to the satisfaction of the competent authority. 6. While parting with this order in appreciation of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that possession of the lands in-question having been taken over by the competent authority it was not open for the Project Director to have invoked the arbitration proceeding under Sub-Section (5) of Section 3G of the Act this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the invoking of the arbitration clause by the Project Director as also appointment of the Additional Collector, Purnea as the arbitrator in the case. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)