IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9068 of 2010 1. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA THROUGH TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, P.I.U. ARARIA AT PURNEA - Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,ARARIA. 3. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY CUM DISTRICT LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, ARARIA. 4. MD.GUFRAN ALAM, S/O LATE SALIMUDDIN, R/O VILLAGE BELWA TAPU TOLA, P.S.-TOWN, DISTRICT- ARARIA - Respondents. ----------- 2 2.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the National Highways Authority of India through its Technical Assistant, P.I.U., Araria for setting aside the passed under section 3G (2) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Two grounds have been raised in this writ petition. It has firstly been argued that the Land Acquisition Officer after preparing the award for payment in lieu of the acquisition of land could not have passed an order enhancing the award amount. On bare perusal of section 3G (2) of the Act it would appear that it provides that where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent, of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land. In view of the provisions aforesaid it appears that it is within the power of the Land Acquisition Officer to calculate the compensation where there is a loss/damage to the land holder due to the acquisition of land in the manner provided under Sub section (2) 2 of Section 3 G of the Act. There is a difference between enhancing the award amount on the ground that the rate of land has not been properly ascertained or fixed or on any other ground and providing for further payment to the awardees as provided under the Act. Annexure 2 is the order by which the amount was to be paid to the land holder as provided under the statute and, therefore, it would not amount to enhancing the award amount. The second point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that section 3G(2) of the Act provides for payment which ought to be calculated at 10% whereas the impugned order shows the calculation at 45.83%. The argument is that it is against the statute to grant more than 10% as loss/damage. It would appear that calculation has been made on the basis of the period of four years seven months, which is the time taken from 13.7.2005 to February, 2010, that is, the date of notification to the date of fixation of the award amount. This aspect can be agitated under section 3G(5) of the Act which provides that the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-sections (1) or (2) is not acceptable to either parties, the amount shall on an application of either party be determined by the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. The question whether the amount should be calculated taking into account the account the loss caused to the land holders from the date of the notification to the date of payment of the award amount, ought to be decided by the Arbitrator and both the parties shall necessarily be heard on this point. It is the mixed question of law and 3 fact, both the parties have to place their case before the Arbitrator regarding the question of loss / damage as a result of the acquisition. This writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to move the Central Government for appointment of an Arbitrator as provided under the Act. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)