1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.7204 of 2023 ------- Anita Devi, aged about 48 years, wife of Sri Gajendra Sahu, resident of Village: Chauli, PO: Khora, PS: Gumla, District-Gumla …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, PO: Dhurwa, PS: Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi 2. Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, PO & PS: Gumla, District-Gumla 3. Additional Collector, Gumla, PO & PS: Gumla, District- Gumla 4. District Land Acquisition Officer, Gurnla, PO & PS: Gumla, District-Gumla 5. Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit, Ashok Nagar, PO: Ashok Nagar, PS: Argora, District-Ranchi .……Respondents ------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Adv. For the Res. NHAI : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Adv. For the Res. State : AC to SC Mines-III ------- 05:07.03.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the order dated 31.07.2023 (Annexure-5), passed by the 4th respondent; whereby the concerned authority in L.A. Case No.24 of 2018-19 rejected the claim of the 2 petitioner for proper compensation and reducing the amount what he himself has awarded earlier, which is apparent from Annexure-2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner had moved this Court whereby his case was disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority, however the concerned authority instead of referring the matter to the competent authority i.e. 3rd respondent who is the arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956; has himself became arbitrator and reduced the earlier amount awarded by him. Learned counsel fairly submits that the case may be disposed of by directing the 4th respondent to refer the matter to the 3rd respondent who is an arbitrator as per Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act. 3. Learned counsel for the NHAI submits that the petitioner should have made prayer before the 4th respondent to refer the case before the 3rd respondent in view of the fact that this Court cannot decide the amount of compensation. She further submits that after measurement of the land of the petitioner, the NHAI has already deposited Rs.21 lakhs and odd. 3 4. Learned counsel for the State-respondent supports the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the NHAI and submits that the case may be disposed of accordingly. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and also after perusing Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, it is clear that if the amount determined by the competent authority, who is 4th respondent in the instant case, under Sub-Section 1 or Sub-Section II is not acceptable to any of the party; he should make an application and the matter would be referred to the arbitrator which is 3rd respondent in the instant case. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.07.2023 (Annexure-5) is quashed and set aside. The 4th respondent is directed to refer the case before the 3rd respondent, who shall decide the issue of compensation. He would be at liberty to measure the land once again, if required, and after measuring the land, the amount of compensation shall be paid to the petitioner for which the petitioner is entitled. Since it is a case of compensation; as such, the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks. 4 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. Pending I.As, if any, is also closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/-