By the Court.—Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners before us have assailed the recovery proceedings issued under the orders of the Additional Collector Land Acquisition, Ghaziabad dated 21st November, 2017 and the certificate of recovery issued on 12th January, 2018 coupled with a citation dated 23rd January, 2018 whereby the petitioners have been called upon to repay the entire amount of compensation that was paid to them in lieu of the property that came to be acquired by the National Highway Authority of India Limited i.e. the respondent No. 2 herein.

3. The present writ petition was entertained and the following interim order was passed on 15th March, 2018.

“Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to implead “Sri Riyasat Ali S/o Sri Ahtmam Ali” as respondent No. 5 to the writ petition. Necessary impleadment be carried out during the course of the day.

The petitioners are subsequent purchasers of the land, which was subject-matter of acquisition by the National Highways Authority of India Ltd.

It is contended that the compensation was received by them and the proceedings initiated for recovering the same is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. Even a subsequent purchaser is entitled to receive compensation. To support the contention, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of V. Chandrashekaran v. Administrative Officer, 2012 (12) SCC 33 and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Nath Singh v. Union of India and others, 2016(2) ADJ 760 (DB).

Prima facie, from the argument advanced and perusal of the record, the issue requires scrutiny.

Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 2, and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, may file counter-affidavit on behalf of the respective respondents within six weeks. Petitioner will thereafter file rejoinder-affidavit within two weeks.

Issue notice to the newly added respondent No. 5, who may also file a counter-affidavit.

Petitioner shall take steps for service of notice on respondent No. 5 by speed post within a week. Office shall issue notice to the respondent No. 5 returnable within six weeks.

List immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.

Considering the facts, further proceedings in pursuance to the recovery certificate dated 12.1.2018 issued by the Additional Collector (Land Acquisition Joint Organization/Competent Authority, Ghaziabad (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) as well as recovery citation dated 23.1.2018 issued by Tehsildar, Ghaziabad (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed, till further orders of the Court.”

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has invited the attention of the Court to another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vipin Agrawal v. Union of India and others in Writ C No. 10958 of 2018 decided on 27th March, 2018 which is extracted hereinunder :

“This petition seeks to assail the recovery notice dated 21 November 2017 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Land Acquisition/Competent Authority) for recovery of the amount of compensation paid to the petitioner as the sale-deed, on the basis of which the petitioner claimed compensation, was executed on 7 September 2015 much after the publication of the declaration made under Section 3D(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 7 August 2012.

It is stated that a large tract of land measuring 244013.42 sq. mtrs. was sought to be acquired for the Delhi-Meerut Expressway by the National Highways Authority by issuance of a notification under Section 3A of the Act on 14 September 2011 that was followed by the publication of the declaration made under Section 3D(1) of the Act in the official gazette on 7 August 2012. The award was also made on 22 June 2013 but it was subsequentl