The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following statutory procedures and respecting the orders of the constitutional courts in land acquisition matters under the National Highways Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 05.11.2020 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma in Misc. Case No. 23 of 2020, whereby the case of the petitioners has been referred to the Addl. Collector, Koderma-cum-Arbitrator appointed under Section 3-G(5) [wrongly written in the order dated 05.11.2020 as 3-H(5)] of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1956”). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to immediately pay compensation to the petitioners treating their lands as residential-cum-commercial which have been acquired for the purpose of four laning/widening of NH-31 from Barhi to Koderma (Barhi-Rajauli Section) under Thana No. 276, Mouza-Chandwara, Block-Chandwara, District -Koderma.

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that a notification under Section 3-A(3) of the Act, 1956 was published in local newspapers i.e., Prabhat Khabar and Dainik Jagran on 22.07.2015 and in Hindustan and Dainik Bhaskar on 19.08.2015 wherein the lands of the petitioners were sought to be acquired for four laning of NH-31 from Barhi to Koderma, situated at Mouza and Block Chandwara, Thana No. 276, District–Koderma. The nature of the said land was shown as “residential”. Thereafter, the petitioners raised objection before the Government of Jharkhand, the copies thereof were communicated to the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 5 – the District Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Competent Authority under the Act, 1956 and the local MLA claiming that only 20% of their lands were residential whereas remaining 80% lands were commercial in nature. However, the objection of the petitioners was not entertained by the said authorities.

3. A Gazette notification dated 29.01.2016 was issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and National Highways, Government of India exercising power under Section 3-D(1) and 3-D(2) of the Act, 1956 and was also published in the local newspapers, wherein the lands of the petitioners were shown as “residential”. However, a public notice through newspaper publication under Section 3-G(3) of the Act, 1956 was made on 10.10.2019 in the local newspaper “Prabhat Khabar” showing the nature of the petitioners” land as “agricultural”.

4. The petitioners thereafter preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6818 of 2019 for quashing paper publication dated 10.10.2019 contending that the Gazette Notification issued on 29.01.2016 under Section 3-D(1) and 3-D(2) of the Act, 1956 is binding on the respondents and they have no power to change the nature of the lands in the subsequent notification. The said writ petition was disposed of on 17.02.2020 giving liberty to the petitioners to prefer fresh representation(s) before the respondent no. 2 with further direction to the said respondent to decide the said representation(s) after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/their representatives. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners made representations before the respondent no. 2 on 29.02.2020 and 30.05.2020, however, the same remained unresponded. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred Cont. Case (Civil) No. 556 of 2020 in which the respondents filed their show cause affidavit annexing a copy of order dated 05.11.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 by which the case of the petitioners was referred to the Additional Collector, Koderma-cum-Arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of the Act, 1956. The said contempt case was then disposed of vide order dated 29.01.2021 giving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 05.11.2020 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Misc. Case No. 23 of 2020. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order dated 05.11.2020 is in total disregard of the direction of this Court as contained in the order dated 17.02.2020