IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 4897 of 2015 Decided on 15th May, 2025 Raj Kumar and others …Petitioners Versus Union of India and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, CGC, for respondent No.1. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents N.3 to 6. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- i) “That orders with respect to petitioners as placed vide Annexure P-6 collectively dated 02.12.2015 may very kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to provide a fair and adequate compensation to the petitioners for losing their earning and livelihood as per the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 and also as per Annexure P-1 by further providing benefits of Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Scheme to the 2 petitioners before displacing them, in the interests of justice and fair play.” 2. Heard for some time. Though, the petitioners herein are aggrieved by the order passed by Land Acquisition Officer dated 02.12.2015, in terms whereof, the claim of the petitioners for award of compensation for loss of business on account of the construction of the National Highways has been rejected on the plea that no objection/application was filed by the petitioners within 21 days of the issuance of the notification in terms of Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, however, after hearing learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Union of India, learned counsel for the NHAI as well as learned Deputy Advocate General, this Court feels that the Land Acquisition Officer completely misdirected himself by not appreciating that there was no occasion for the petitioners to file any objections, because, they were not per se objecting the acquisition of the land. The grievance of the petitioners was that they were entitled for compensation in terms of Section 3G of the Act as they were in possession of the land acquired. However, rather than dwelling on this aspect of the matter, the Land Acquisition Officer completely misdirected himself and rejected the claim of the petitioners vide impugned order on reasoning already mentioned hereinabove. 3 3. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order and by remanding the matter back to CALA with the direction that let the applications filed by the petitioners be decided in the light of the provisions of Section 3G in general and Section 3G(3) in particular. In case due notice was issued by the Authority concerned as is contemplated under Section 3G(3) of the Act and the petitioners submitted their claims pursuant thereto, then, the same be dealt with in accordance with law. Needful be done within a period of six months, after adhering to the principles of natural justice. 4. Parties to appear before CALA on 26.05.2025. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 15, 2025 (Vinod)