ARUN KUMAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the National Highway Authority of India, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the "NHAI").

(2.) Petitioners are the raiyat of the lands acquired for the purpose of widening of NH-57 in terms of the provisions contained in the National Highways Act, 1956(hereinafter referred to as the Act). They are aggrieved by the order passed by the Project Director, NHAI, Araria dated 5.12.2009, Annexure-1, whereunder reference has been made under Sub-Section- (5) of Section-3G of the Act to the Arbitrator for fresh determination of the compensation amount determined by the competent authority under Sub-Section-(1) of Section- 3G of the Act.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the reference was made on 5.12.2009 after taking possession of the lands in question by the competent authority on 22.10.2009, as such, reference is bad for the reason that the competent authority having taken possession under Section-3E the Project Director is not authorized to make reference under Sub-Section-(5) of Section-3G. In this connection, it is pointed out with reference to the provisions contained in Section-3E of the Act that possession of the subject matter of acquisition is to be taken after determination of the amount under Section-3G and determination under Section-3G shall include determination by the Arbitrator under Sub-Section-(5) of Section-3G as well, as such, before taking possession of the land by the competent authority, if the Project Director was not satisfied with the quantum of the amount of compensation determined by the competent authority under Sub-Section-(1) of Section- 3G then he aught to have requested the competent authority not to take possession until the amount is finally determined by the Arbitrator under Sub-Section-(5) of Section- 3G of the Act. The Project Director having made no such request to the competent authority not to take possession of the lands in question at this belated stage after the possession of the lands in question was taken by the competent authority could not have made, reference under Sub-Section- (5) of Section-3G of the Act. In this connection, learned counsel further referred to Section-3H of the Act which inter alia provides that before taking possession of the lands in question, the competent authority must ensure deposit of the amount determined under Section-3G of the act and with reference to the provisions contained in Sub-Section-(1) of Section-3E and Sub- Section(1) of Section-3H, learned counsel submitted that as reference was not made until the date of taking possession on 22.10.2009 subsequent reference to the Arbitrator is violative of the provisions contained in Sub-Section-(1) of Section-3E and Sub-Section-(1) of Section-3H of the Act and the belated reference made on 5.12.2009, Annexure-1 be quashed. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the counter affidavit filed by the competent authority in the earlier round litigation between the parties, which is annexed as Annexure-7 to suggest that the Project Director had approved the amount determined by the competent authority whereafter 18.9.2008 was fixed as the date for payment of the compensation but later on the Project Director refused to sign the cheque for the amount determined by the competent authority.