In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following relief:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that National Highway Authority, Government of India, for the purpose of widening the six lane NH-2 from 890 KM (Varanasi- Aurangabad section) decided to acquire land in exercise of power the National Highway Act 1956 and the Government issued notification for acquisition of different lands including the land of petitioner vide Gazette notification dated 13.11.2014 Patna High Court CWJC No.18923 of 2024(2) dt.12-12-2024 3/4 and the copy of the said Notification is annexed as annexure-1 of the writ petition. The preparation for calculation of compensation amount has already been annexed by virtue of annexure-2. A chart for compensation amount has been annexed at annexure-3, where petitioner land has been acquired and for which compensation of Rs.63,97,247/- has been decided. Petitioners have been aggrieved by final compensation chart which is annexed at page 30 where the same area of land and same nature of land has been acquired but the compensation amount is Rs. 9,73,664.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the competent authority-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram has earlier prepared the award of compensation for the same area and same nature of land which is Rs.63,97,247/- but later on they have reviewed their own order and for the same area and same extent of land compensation asmount has been decided to be Rs. 9,73, 664.1. He further submits that in light of Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation Act,2013, same authority cannot review the compensation rather competent authority has power under 3 G (5) of National Highway Act, 1956 for deciding the compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited a single bench judgment in Patna High Court CWJC No.18923 of 2024(2) dt.12-12-2024 4/4 the case of Parmila Devi and Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors passed in CWJC No. 5750 of 2019 alongwith CWJC No. 5908 of 2019 and others, in which when the earlier order passed by the authority has been reviewed, in that situation, the single Bench has quashed the order passed by the authority and directed to make recourse to Section 3 G(5) of Act of 1956 by way of filing appropriate application before the Arbitrator-cum- Divisional Commissioner and the present case is fully covered with that case and mauza is also same with regard to CWJC No. 7437 of 2019.

3. Learned counsel on behalf of NHAI is directed to file counter affidavit in the light of Parmila Devi (supra) judgment. He should apprise as to whether the aforesaid judgment has been challenged or not and if the same is not challenged, then, the order passed by the single judge has attained finality.

4. Re-list this matter on 30.01.2025.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) vashudha/-