JUDGMENT

1. This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

2. Heard Mr. Bakshi S.R.P. Sinha, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Suresh Prasad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.D. Yadav, learned AAG-9 for the State of Bihar and Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, learned Central Government counsel for the National Highway Authority of India.

3. The petitioner, in the present writ application, is seeking direction commanding the respondents to construct a road over bridge on NH-28B, which is being constructed over Mangalpur 94 Km of NH-28B to connect a rail over bridge. He is seeking quashing of the notification served upon him to acquire his land for the purpose of said over bridge. The petitioner is also seeking a direction to the respondents to construct the over bridge through its original route and not by shifting it towards east, which includes the petitioner's land in question.

4. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner is landholder of land appertaining to Khata No. 23 Khesra No. 99, Khata No. 32 Kheshra No. 108, Khata No. 486 Kheshra No. 865, Khata No. 486 Kheshra No. 866 and Khata No. 473 Kheshra No. 866 situate at village Malkauli, Ward No. 01, Thana No. 143 in the District of West Champaran. This is also not in dispute that the petitioner's land is under acquisition in accordance with the provisions under the National Highway Act, 1956 in respect of which a notification was issued on 31.01.2019 in official gazette. The petitioner has brought on record three notices issued by the competent authority-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer enabling him to raise his objection, if any, against proposed acquisition by appearing himself or through his agent/advocate on 17.05.2019 at 11.30 a.m.. Pursuant to the said notices, the petitioner did file his objection. It appears that subsequently, the date for hearing of objection was adjourned to 31.07.2019, as requested by the petitioner.

5. It is noteworthy that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 9 to 12, it has been stated inter alia that the petitioner's objection has been considered and rejected by an order dated 05.03.2021 communicated to the petitioner through letter no. 105 dated 05.03.2021. The order dated 05.03.2021 has been brought on record by way of Annexure-F to the said counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 9 to 12.

6. Mr. Bakshi S.R.P. Sinha, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the provision under Section 3C of the Act to contend that the said provision obligates the competent authority to give an objector, an opportunity of personal hearing, either in person or by a legal practitioner. He has submitted that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and without complying the said mandatory requirement, the impugned order on the petitioner's objection has been passed, which is manifestly illegal, requiring this Court's interference.

7. Per contra, Mr. S.D. Yadav, learned AAG-9 appearing for the State has submitted that Annexure-3 to the writ application clearly indicates that the petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing by fixing date and time for such hearing. He has further argued that on the petitioner's request, the hearing was adjourned to 31.07.2019, as is evident from letter no. 1319 dated 12.07.2019, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-3 to the writ application. He has accordingly submitted that there is no violation of any statutory provision in rejecting the petitioner's objection.

8. I have carefully perused the pleadings on record. I do not find any merit in the writ petition apropos the plea that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing either in person or through his representative. The notice dated 12.07.2019 indicates that date and time of hearing was fixed by the competent authority. On the petitioner's request, the hearing was adjourned to a s