Rajiv Roy, J. – Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, State as also learned Counsel appearing on behalf of National Highway Authority of India (henceforth for short ‘the N.H.A.I’).

2. The present petition has been preferred for the: –

issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent-authorities, to make payment of compensation with interest for the land acquired by the National Highway Authority of India Ltd., Darbhanga in terms of the settlement dated 08.06.2013 and the petitioner further prayed for a direction for payment of compensation in addition to the above under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, with all consequential benefits attached to such acquisition and the petitioner further prays for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction to which the he may be found legally entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case as stated hereinafter.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that ‘the N.H.A.I.’ decided to acquire the land for the development of N.H.-57 (Darbhanga-Muzaffarpur road widening between 37.75 km to 69.8 km) which included five of his plots.

4. The further submission is that ‘the N.H.A.I.’ fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,26,874/- per katha. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved before the Arbitrator cum Additional Collector, Darbhanga who after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned, enhanced the compensation rate to Rs. 2,50,000/- per katha vide an order dated 08.06.2013 (Annexure-1 to the petition).

5. This followed the letter dated 16.06.2015 issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Darbhanga (henceforth for short ‘the D.L.A.O.’) requesting the Director, N.H.A.I for providing enhanced compensation amount so that the difference amount of Rs. 10,22,256/- can be paid to the petitioner (Annexure 3 to the petition).

6. The ‘N.H.A.I.’ in turn vide letter dated 23.06.2015 informed ‘the D.L.A.O.’ that in similar such matters, appeals have been preferred and as such the amount is presently being withheld.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a letter issued by ‘the N.H.A.I.’ by its Project Director, on 24.06.2015 and addressed to the Regional Officer of the same authority and paragraph-8 of the letter read as follows: –

“8. The award has not been sent by the Arbitrator as per record available in this office, hence the date of receipt of DLAO letter in this office on 17.06.2015 will be considered as date of intimation.

In the light of above, it is requested to take appropriate action regarding acceptance of the award of challenging the decision of Arbitrator at the competent court under section 34 of Arbitrator & Reconcillation Act 1996. The time limit to refer the matter to competent court is 90 days from the date of intimation which is 17.06.2015, beyond which the legal reference may not be acceptable at the competent court.”

8. He submits that from the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear that the higher authority of ‘the N.H.A.I.’ wanted either to accept the award or challenge the decision. This according to him dates back to the year 2015.

9. Learned Counsel submits that thereafter he ran from pillar to post submitting representations, one after another and as there was no response, the present writ petition.

10. A counter affidavit of ‘the D.L.A.O.’ is also on record according to which in paragraph-6, it has been narrated that pursuant to the order dated 08.06.2013 passed by the Arbitrator, request was made to the Project Director, N.H.A.I, Darbhanga to make available difference amount of Rs. 10,22,256/- so that the full compensation could be paid to the petitioner but in absence of any response, the payment could not be made.

11. The writ petition was filed in the year 2018 and six years later and after this Court passed an order on 28.02.2024, ‘the N.H.A.I.’ decided to file its response.

12. In parag