Parmanand Singh And ORS v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20125 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Parmanand Singh, Son of Late Gangadev Narayan Singh, resident of village - Gopalpur, P.S. Nayagaon, District - Saran

2. Rameshnandan Singh, Son of Late Gangadev Narayan Singh, resident of village - Gopalpur, P.S. Nayagaon, District - Saran

3. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Son of Late Gangadev Narayan Singh, resident of village - Gopalpur, P.S. Nayagaon, District - Saran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India, through Chairman, National Highway, Authority of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, G - 5 & 6 Sector - 10 Dwarika, New Delhi - 110075

2. The Chairman National Highway, Authority of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, G - 5 & 6 Sector - 10 Dwarika, New Delhi - 110075

3. Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Dahiyawa Chhapra, Distt. Saran

4. The District Magistrate, Saran, through Principal Secretary, Depatment of Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna

5. The District Acquisition officer, Saran

6. The DCLR, Sonepur, District Saran

7. The Circle Officer, Sonepur, Distt. Saran

8. Sub Registrar, Sonepur, Distt. Saran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam- Aag12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 09-08-2017 Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3.

It is an admitted position that some lands of petitioners were acquired and the award was prepared but being aggrieved by the amount of award, petitioners filed objection before the Arbitrator which has been annexed at Annexure 1 of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.20125 of 2016 (2) dt.10-08-2017 2/2 counter affidavit. Moreover, Para-10 of the counter affidavit reveals that 80% amount of award is lying with respondent no. 5 and notices to the petitioners for grant of 80% amount have already been issued but even then they did not turn up to receive the amount.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition stands disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to withdraw 80% amount from respondent no. 5 and furthermore, the petitioners may pursue the objection filed before the Arbitrator under section 3G(5) of NHI Act.

However, if the petitioners do so, the concerned Arbitrator shall dispose of the objection of the petitioners as early as possible.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) N.K/- U