IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.6885 of 2024 ----- Ali Husain, aged about 66 years, son of Mohan Miyan, resident of Village-Jhurjhuri, P.O.-Barkattha, P.S. Barkattha, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The NHAI through the Project Chief Engineer having its office at Kanhari Hill Road, Hazaribag, P.O., P.S. and District-Hazaribag. 3. The Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department (NHAI), P.O., P.S. and District-Hazaribag. 4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Hazaribag, P.O., P.S. and District-Hazaribag. .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, A.C. to A.G. For the NHAI : Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kr. Shandilya, Advocate ----- Order No.08 Date: 05.03.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of direction upon the respondent no.3 to get the construction made over the land appertaining to Khata No.46, Plot No.517/4 village Jhurjhuri, Circle-Barkattha Panchat No.124, measuring an area of 0.030 acre re-evaluated pursuant to the letter no.1039 dated 19th July, 2022 (Annexure-3) issued by the respondent no.4. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid land along with land appertaining to Plot No.509 measuring an area of 0.01 acre was acquired vide Land Acquisition Case No.44 of 2012-13 for the purpose of widening of NH-2 under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short “Act, 1956”). Though valuation of the entire land was done, 2 W.P.(C) No.6885 of 2024 however, the award was prepared only with respect to the said area of plot no.509 mentioning that award was prepared for the plot no.517 measuring an area of 0.03 acre. 3. It is further submitted that the plot no.517 was in four parts i.e., 517/1, 517/2, 517/3 and 517/4. Plot no.517/4 measuring an area of 0.03 acre along with the structure made over the same belonged to the petitioner but the award was prepared only to the extent of Rs.3,51,378/- which is wrong and unjust. The petitioner agitated the said issue by filing a representation before the respondent no.4, who thereafter vide letter as contained in memo no.1039 dated 19th July, 2022 requested the respondent no.3 to re-evaluate the structure erected over the said land and to make available the evaluation report, so as to take further step in that regard. However, no further action was taken by the respondent no.3 in this regard which has compelled the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-NHAI refers to paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 which reads as under: “10.That with regard to the statement made in paragraph no. 9, 10 and 11 to the writ application under reply, it is submitted that the District Land Acquisition officer, after preparing the award, cannot pass any direction for re-evaluation of land. Instead, the District Land Acquisition officer (Respondent No.4) was duty bound to transfer the objection of the petitioner to the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh under the provision of Section 3G (5) of the Act, 1956, for adjudication of the enhancement of compensation by the Arbitrator/Additional Collector, Hazaribagh. Therefore, any orders/direction for re- 3 W.P.(C) No.6885 of 2024 evaluation based on the petitioner's objection after the award has been finalised is bad in law and is without jurisdiction.” 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of the issue raised in the present writ petition, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent no.2 is in consonance with law. If the petitioner was aggrieved with the quantum of compensation fixed by preparing an award, the recourse under Section 3G (5) of the Act, 1956 was required to be taken by him. 6. The respondent no.4 has also committed a mistake in issuing the letter dated 19th July, 2022 to the respondent no.3 asking him to make re-evaluation of the structure erected over the land in question despite the fact that the award in this respect was already prepared. 7. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the petitioner is given liberty to file a fresh application before the respondent no.4 on the present issue. On receipt of the said application, the respondent no.4, shall refer the matter to the Additional Collector, Hazaribag-cum-Arbitrator under the Act, 1956 for determination of compensation amount within 30 days from the date of filing of the application. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) Rohit/