Ajay Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11477 of 2019 ====================================================== 1.

Ajay Kumar Singh Son of Late Pradeep Singh Resident of VillageThorshan, P.S.- Karagahar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. 2.

Jaynath Singh Son of Thakur Singh Resident of Village Dumari (Shahpur) P.S. Kargahar, District- Rohtas.

3.

Haridwar Singh Son of Sri Bhagwan Singh Resident of Village Dumari (Shahpur) P.S. Kargahar, District- Rohtas.

4.

Kailasho Kuwar Wife of Late Janardan Singh Resident of Village Dumari (Shahpur) P.S. Kargahar, District- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate Cum Collector Rohtas at Sasaram. 3.

The Competent Authority Cum District Land Acquisition Officer Rohtas at Sasaram.

4.

The Branch Manager Bank of India Branch, Sasaram. 5.

The Arvind Kumar Singh Son of Late Pradeep Singh Resident of Village Thorshan, P.S.- Karagahar, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. 6.

The National Highway Authority of India.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners :

Mr.Raghunandan Kumar Singh For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Mr.Sajid Salim Khan (Sc25) For the Respondent No.4 :

Mr. Nishi Nath Ojha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-06-2019 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is permitted to implead National Highway Authority of India as party-respondent No.6.

The petitioners are seeking quashing of the Award No. 93 and 94, both dated 15.12.2018, passed in Case No. 14 of 2016-17 by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Rohtas-cum-

Patna High Court CWJC No.11477 of 2019(2) dt.25-06-2019 2/2 Competent Authority, against acquisition of land of these petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that determination of the amount of compensation is against MVR fixed by the State Government for the circle in question (Sheosagar, Rohtas). In my view, the petitioners have statutory remedy under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956, which states that if amount, determined by the competent authority, is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the Arbitrator, to be appointed by the Central Government. In such view of the matter, this application is disposed of with the observation that the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the Arbitrator, to be appointed under the Act, for the relief, which they are seeking in the present writ application. This writ application stands disposed of.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Pawan/- U