IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of providing the affected party with an opportunity to be heard before passing any order prejudicial to their rights, in line with the principles of natural justice and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP KUMAR, J.

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.09.2020 (Annex-3) passed by Respondent No. 5 whereby and whereunder the respondents are seeking to recover from the petitioner the amount of compensation paid to the brother of the petitioner in the year 2014.

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that the amount of compensation determined in terms of the circle rate prevalent in the year 2014 considering the land to be residential is proper and legal.

(iii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to recover the amount of compensation paid in the year 2014 to the brother of the petitioner.

(iv) To stay the order dated 23.09.2020 passed by Respondent No. 6 during the pendency of this writ application.”

2. The facts of this case are that for the purpose of four-laning of NH-84 in the district of Buxar, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) had issued notifications in the official Gazettee for acquisition of land. Accordingly, the land of the petitioner's father bearing Mauza-Churampur, Thana-353, Plot No. 1395, area-0.046 hectare was acquired. Since at that time, the father of the petitioner died the elder brother of the petitioner namely, late Rama Shankar Pandey, completed all the formalities and received the entire compensation amount of Rs. 14,29,655/-. The said amount was paid to the elder brother of the petitioner in the year 2014 itself vide award dated 14.02.2014 passed by the competent authority-cum-DCLR, Buxar (respondent No. 5) in Compensation Case No. 19 of 2014. After completing all the formalities, the land of the petitioner was acquired. However, the respondent no. 5 issued order dated 23.09.2020 directing the petitioner to refund the excess amount of Rs. 8,42,946/- which has been paid to the brother of the petitioner, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is beyond the power granted to them under the relevant provisions of the NHAI Act. In fact, there is no provision in the Act which authorizes them to recover the compensation once paid by changing the nature of land. He further submits that the fresh compensation has been determined behind the back of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order is ultra vires to Section 21 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. He also submits that the respondents cannot recover the alleged excess amount of compensation from the petitioner as the same was never paid to him rather it was paid to his elder brother, who is now deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that neither the petitioner nor his deceased elder brother have ever played any fraud or misrepresented any facts before the authorities in order to obtain higher amount of compensation and at the time of Gazette publication, the nature of land was classified as “residential” by the respondents themselves and the compensation amount was paid and therefore, the respondents cannot unilaterally change the nature of the land after having paid the legitimate amount of compensation and after having taken possession of the land concerned. He further submits that the action of the respondents is contrary to the specific findings of the Six Men Committee.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the amount is recoverable as per the procedure provided under the Bihar & Orrisa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. He further submits that the respondents cannot recover the excess amount by adopting a summary procedure when no such power has been granted under Section 3G and 3H of the National Hi