IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that challenges to compensation must be pursued through arbitration under the National Highways Act, not through writ petitions.

JUDGMENT :

Aniruddha Roy, J.

Facts:

1. Rumela and Pamela are two sisters. This writ petition has been filed by Rumela. She claims that by virtue of a registered gift executed on May 26, 2017 in her favour, she became the absolute owner of a residential flat (for short, the flat) measuring a super build-up area for about 1084 sq. ft. on the second floor of a four storeyed building situated at R.S. Dag No. 315/974 (part) under R.S. Khaitan No.15, A.R. Dag No. 450, under L.R. Khaitan No. 569, Mouza-Jagacha, J.L. No. 6, P.S.: Jagacha, District: Howrah, as more fully and particularly described in paragraph 2 of the writ petition.

2. The petitioner claims to have rented out the said flat in favour of her sister Pamela who is occupying the same for commercial purpose.

3. For the purpose of widening of National Highway, NH-117 (for short, the national highway) to a six lane highway, a notification was issued on January 10, 2022 (for short, the 3A Notification) published in the Official Gazette of India under Sections 3A and 3A(3) of The National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, 1956 Act) for acquisition of portions of lands. The notification was also published in the local newspaper. From the said 3A Notification the petitioner came to learn that the portion of land was proposed to be acquired included the land on which the premises of the petitioner is situated.

4. Following the procedure of law the petitioner, as an interested person within the meaning of Section 3G(3) of the 1956 Act, was invited to participate in the hearing before the competent authority on August 16, 2022 and the petitioner has submitted her necessary application/objection before the competent authority, Annexure P-1 at page 22 to the writ petition.

5. After hearing the petitioner the competent authority under the said 1956 Act made and published an award for compensation payable to the petitioner and the same was communicated to the petitioner by a notice dated October 13, 2023 bearing award serial no. 170 crystalizing a compensation for a sum of Rs.36,64,410/- payable to the petitioner, Annexure P-2 at page 85 to the writ petition. The petitioner has received and accepted the compensation and the compensation amount was credited to the bank account of the petitioner by the authority through electronic mode of transfer.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the compensation quantum the petitioner submitted a representation dated November 21, 2023 before the competent authority Annexure P-3 at page 86 to the writ petition.

7. The objections of the petitioner against the quantum of award compensation, as pleaded in the writ petition, are extracted below:

“8. Your petitioner states that vide a representation dated 21st November 2023, addressed to the Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956, the petitioner conveyed her dissatisfaction and disapproval regarding the amount of compensation awarded inasmuch as the true market value of the said flat and the building was not considered at all by the Competent Authority and the said Authority also did not consider the loss of earning from rent i.e., at a commercial rate, which the petitioner would suffer as a result of such acquisition. Furthermore, the petitioner in the said representation inter alia had also mentioned that the compensation awarded by the Competent Authority was being received by the petitioner without prejudice to the right to seek enhancement of such award.

A photocopy of the representation dated 21st November, 2023 has been annexed herewith and marked as 'Annexure P-3'.

9. Your petitioner states that from the said notice dated 13.10.2023 it transpires that the acquisition proceeding has been done and the compensation has been awarded by ignoring the commercial nature of the premises. It is pertinent to mention here that award has been awarded considering nature and character of the plot as 'Suna' thereby completely ignoring the fact that the said land was in fact a 'Bastu' land.

10. Your petitio