Harish Kumar, J.—Considering the identical grievance based upon similar facts, with the consent of all the parties; these batch of the writ petitions were heard simultaneously and being disposed of by this common order/judgment. The facts of CWJC No. 6863 of 2018 are being taken note of as a lead case.

2. The petitioners in all these batch of the writ petitions happened to be the owner of the lands, particulars of which have been duly mentioned in their respective writ petitions and were acquired for the purpose of constructing Indo-Nepal Border Road under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (For the brevity ‘the Act, 2013’).

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the letter/notice issued under Memo No. 459 dated 28.07.2017, as also other identical letters, issued on different dates, as well as the entire proceeding initiated by the District Magistrate/Collector, Araria on the basis thereof the respondents have re-opened the proceeding of acquisition already finalized and the amount of compensation and solatium already paid to the petitioners and, as such, barred in terms of Section 37 of the Act, 2013. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the letter no. 452 dated 28.07.2017 and other similar letters issued by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Araria whereby the Bank account of the petitioners have been made frozen with instructions to the lead Bank to stop permitting operations until permission of the respondent Collector. The petitioners also sought quashing of the letter as contained in Memo no. 181 dated 17.03.2018, as also other identical letters, whereby the differential amount of compensation has been demanded from the petitioners. The petitioners further sought a declaration that once the whole mechanism and process of acquisition of land right since preliminary notice published under Section 11 of the Act till payment of compensation pursuant to finality of award under Section 37 of the Act has been completed, no provisions of the Act confers any jurisdiction and authority upon the respondent Collector or the respondent no.4 to reopen the award by disputing the parameters and the basis leading to such finality of land acquisition proceeding.

4. Before adjudicating the legality of the impugned action of the respondents leading to issuance of impugned orders, the facts, which are relevant in the matters, to be noted hereinbelow:

5. A total 456.01.200 acres of land from 64 villages falling under four Anchals viz Narpatganj, Forbesganj, Kurshakanta and Sikta were intended to be acquired by the State Government for constructing Indo-Nepal Border Road. The necessity and requirement expressed by the Road Construction Department for construction of aforenoted road, the land owned by the petitioners and other similar such land-owners were proposed to be acquired by way of notification No. 639 dated 11.05.2016 issued under Section 11(1) of the Act, 2013, published in the official gazette as well as in newspapers. On 12.05.2016, the respondents published another notification under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2013 regarding declaration and summary of rehabilitation and resettlement as prescribed in law for the land proposed to be acquired.

6. It is stated that in course of acquisition of the land of the petitioners, the respondent District Land Acquisition Officer, Araria called upon the petitioners to furnish the particulars of land, documents of title, details of interest in the said land, land possession certificate, rent payment receipts etc. The petitioners submitted the copies of the respective title deed/sale deed of the land, rent payment receipts and land possession certificate before the respondent District Land Acquisition Officer and also executed an affidavit as required by the said authority. Having completed all the paraphernalia, the respondent District Land Acquisition Officer took possession of the land of the petitioners, before the publicat