Writ petitioners are not entitled to compensation since awards were announced before the cutoff date, irrespective of their later payments.

1. The parties to the instant writ petition are represented by their respective learned advocates.

2. At the very outset, Mr. Dinda, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/State submits before this Court that he intends to file a report supported by affidavit in connection with the instant writ petition.

3. On perusal of the orders dated 16.08.2023, 17.11.2023, 05.01.2024, 09.02.2024, 20.03.2024, 17.05.2024 and 10.06.2025, it appears to this Court that on all the occasions, the respondent/State and its instrumentalities were represented by their learned advocate, however, no prayer was made before this Court to file a report and/or affidavit-in-opposition.

4. Such being the position, this Court is of considered view that it would be unjust if any accommodation is given to the State to submit a report since the instant writ petition is pending for a period of two years or more.

5. Ms. Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the NHAI/authority submits before this Court that apart from the report as filed by the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and as affirmed on 13.12.2023, she intends to file some more documents. She also seeks for an accommodation.

6. Prayer for accommodation is considered and rejected since the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 have already submitted their report and against such report, an exception has been filed by the writ petitioners.

7. By filing the instant writ petition, the writ petitioners have prayed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs against the respondents/authorities, more specifically, against the respondent no. 7/authority for quashing of the award as passed under Section 3G (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act of 1956’ in short) in connection with L.A. Case No.

54A/NH/10-11.

8. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Page No. 18 of the report as submitted on behalf of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. It is submitted that from Page No. 18 of the said report, being a copy of the memo dated 13.08.2015, it would reveal that the award in connection with the said land acquisition case was declared on 31.03.2015.

9. At this juncture, Mr. Das took me to the 4^th Schedule of the said Act of 2013 wherefrom it reveals that the said Act of 1956 is included in the 4^th Schedule of the said Act of 2013. It is submitted by Mr. Das that though the said Act of 2013 was brought into effect on January 1, 2014, however, from Page No. 29 of the said report of the NHAI/authority, it would reveal that in respect of the said Act of 1956, the said Act of 2013 was made applicable with effect from 01.01.2015.

10. At this juncture, Mr. Das again draws attention of this Court to Clause III(c) of the Manual of Guidelines on Land Acquisition for National Highways under the said Act of 1956 as has been annexed with the report of the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 at Page Nos. 28 and 29. It is submitted that from the said Guidelines, it would reveal that all cases of land acquisition, where the award has not been announced under Section 3G of the said Act of 1956 till 31.12.2014, the compensation would be payable in accordance with the first schedule of the said Act of 2013.

11. It is thus submitted by Mr. Das that in view of such clear guideline, the respondent no. 7/authority has miserably failed to assess the award in connection with L.A. Case No. 54A/NH/10-11 in terms of the provisions of the said Act of 2013.

12. It is thus submitted by Mr. Das that in view of the facts and circumstances as involved in the instant writ petition, appropriate relief/reliefs may be granted to the writ petitioners in accordance with the prayers as made i