IMPORTANT POINT
The Competent Authority under the National Highways Act cannot revise its compensation order, and disputes must be resolved through arbitration.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos.7, 8 & 9.

2. The instant intra-Court Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.03.2024 passed in WP(C) No. 106/2021 whereby the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition thereby opining that the Petitioners therein who are the respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein would be entitled to receive compensation as per the Award dated 17.04.2021 prepared by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) as well as also gave the liberty to the Appellants herein to prefer an application under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956’), if aggrieved with the quantum of compensation and further directed that the amount which was determined as per the revised Award dated 18.08.2021 be deposited before the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) within 1 (one) month from the date of the application made under Section 3G (5) of the Act of 1956.

3. For deciding the present intra-Court Appeal, we find it relevant to take note of certain brief facts which are narrated infra.

4. From the materials on record, it reveals that for the purpose of building (widening/two lane with paved shoulder/four laning etc.), maintenance, management and operation of NH-6 (NH-53) in the stretch of land from Km. 15 to Km. 30.05 (Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Saitual, PWD Veng, Saitual) in the district of Saitual in the State of Mizoram, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways had issued a notification in terms with Section 3A of the Act of 1956 to acquire land as has been described in the said notification dated 11.08.2020. Pursuant thereto, another notification dated 29.09.2020under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 was issued. By virtue of the said notification and more particularly in view of Section 3D (2) of the Act of 1956, the land stood vested upon the Central Government. It is relevant to take note of that in terms with Section 3G (1) of the Act of 1956, the Competent Authority who was duly appointed by the Central Government in terms with Section 3 (a) of the Act of 1956 had passed the order on 17.04.2021. Thereupon, on the intervention made by the State Respondents vide the communication dated 13.08.2021, another order was passed on 18.08.2021. The Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein who were the Petitioners in WP(C) No. 106/2021, being aggrieved had preferred a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) to revise its order passed under Section 3G (1) of the Act of 1956 in as much as the Act of 1956 did not provide for such a power of review. The Petitioners therein further sought for a direction that the payment of the compensation be disbursed in favour of the Petitioners on the basis of the order dated 17.04.2021.

5. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 05.03.2024 whereby the learned Single Judge opined that the Petitioners, i.e. the Respondent Nos.1 to 6 herein would be entitled to compensation in terms with the order dated 17.04.2021 on the basis that the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) did not have the jurisdiction to revise its order passed under Section 3G (1) of the Act of 1956. The learned Single Judge further taking into account Section 3G (5) of the Act of 1956 and the aspect that the said provision provided either of the parties to approach the Arbitrator in the circumstance any of the parties are aggrieved as regards the quantum of compensation, granted the liberty to the Appellants herein to prefer such application. The learned Single Judge further taking into account that Appellants herein who were the Respondents in the writ petition had