Mahabir Prasad v. The State Of Bihar & Ors.

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rewti Kant Raman, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kr Sinha AAG2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 4 26-11-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and A.C. to AAG-2 for the State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.2. Land appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 172 (C.S. Plot No. 265) situate in village Makhdumpur in the district of Vaishali belongs to the petitioner. Aforesaid land besides other land was acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (for short “the NHAI”) for construction of NH 77. An award was prepared in the name of the petitioner although shown as Mahavir Prasad Sah. The petitioner was not satisfied with the compensation amount as the said land was treated as agricultural land. He made representations in this regard before the District Land Acquisition Officer-Cum- Competent Authority under the National Highways Act 1956. It is the contention of the petitioner that the matter was referred to a Committee but decision in this regard was not taken 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.17529 of 2012 (4) dt.26-11-2012 in spite of representation(s) which compelled him to file the present petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay the enhanced compensation amount for the said land to the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 it has been stated in paragraphs 7 and 9 are as under :

From perusal of the record of land acquisition No. 39/2009-10 of village Makhdumpur, Thana No. 08 and declaration U/s 3D. It is clear that except plot no. 172 and 173 most of the adjacent plots are classified as residential plots. No plots are classified as commercial plots in 3 D publication. The plot of the petitioner (Plot No. 172) and plot no. 173 is published as agricultural land in 3 D publication which means the competent authority did not consider Plot No. 172 and 173 as residential or commercial. In Khatiyan the said plot is written as Bhith-I i.e. agricultural land. The committee which was formed under the chairmanship of Collector, Vaishali also did not recommend treated as Residential/Commercial

. the plot no. 172 to be

That with regard to the statements made din para No. 18 to 25 of the writ petition, it is stated that it is denied that respondents are acting in collusion with each other. If the petitioner thinks that the classification of his land is not done correctly by the competent authority or committee resulting compensation amount determined for him, there is clear provision U/s 3 G (5) of National Highways Act 1956 which says, if the amount determined by the competent authority under Sub-Section (1) or Sub Section (2) 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

. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.17529 of 2012 (4) dt.26-11-2012 There is agreement at the Bar that any dispute of the nature raised in the present writ petition can be raised by the petitioner under section 3 G (5) of the Act which reads thus :- “If the amount determined by the competent authority under Sub- Section (1) or Sub Section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government.” In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this Court may direct the respondents to treat the application ( annexure-4) filed by the petitioner as an application seeking reference of the matter in terms of the aforesaid provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the State, however, has taken a stand that the petitioner should file a fresh application in this regard whereupon the concerned respondent will take appropriate action as required. Let the petitioner file a fresh application detailing relevant facts including the grievance along with copy of this order before the Additional Collector Vaishali (respondent no.5) who shall thereafter consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law expeditiously after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner preferably within four months therefrom. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Naresh/-