IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4771 of 2025 ====================================================== Ajit Mahto Son of Late Ramvilash Mahto Resident of Tulsipur, P.S. Bariyarpur, Block Bariyarpur, District Munger. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi through its Director, National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi. 2. The Director, National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi. 3. The Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, Munger. 4. The Competent Authority-Cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Munger, Bihar. 5. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Munger, Bihar. 6. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger. 7. The Chairman of Six-Man Committee-Cum-Additional Collector, Munger. 8. The District Sub-Registrar, Munger. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashish Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Aditya Anand, Advocate Mrs. Parul Prasad, Advocate Ms. Shristi Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prem Ranjan Raj, AC to SC-7 For the NHAI : Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 14-07-2026 Heard Mr. Ashish Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing duly assisted by Mrs. Parul Prasad, Mr. Prem Ranjan Raj, learned AC to SC-7 as also Mr. Sriram Krishna for the National Highways Authority of India (for brevity, ‘the NHAI’). 2. The present application has been preferred for the following relief(s): Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 2/21 “(i) for quashing/ setting aside the order dated 18.04.2023 in Land Acquisition Case No. 05/2021 passed by the Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Munger whereby and whereunder it has been stated that the Six-Man Committee Report formed for the assessment does not contain signatures of all six persons as such a fresh committee be formed and on the basis of earlier recorded photographs, video and Google Map, a fresh recommendation be made for assessment of value of the land acquired and thereafter, the same be published in Newspaper in accordance with Section 3G of the NH Act within a period of one (1) month as the same is without jurisdiction and in violation with the provisions of law; (ii) for quashing the Physical Inspection Report dated 15.03.2024 with respect to the assessment of the nature and description of the land made by Six-man Committee to the extent of the land of the Petitioner, as the same has been done pursuant to the Order dated 18.04.2023 in Land Acquisition Case No. 05/2021 passed by the Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 3/21 Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Munger and is in direct violation to the provision of section 3G (1) read with section 3G (7) of the National Highway Act, 1956 and also Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (iii) for quashing/setting aside the Notification dated 11.01.2019 published in the Extraordinary Gazette of India dated 12.01.2019 under Section 3D of the NH Act, 1956 to the extent that the nature of the land of the Petitioner at Sl. No.230 and Sl. No.239 have been declared to be agricultural as the very basis of the finding was the assessment by the Six-Man Committee which has already been set aside by the Respondent Divisional Commissioner, Munger vide Order dated 18.02.2023 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 05/2021 as the same was not in accordance with law; (iv) for directing the Respondent Authorities to make payment of compensation to the Petitioner for the land, under the category of Residential land as per the Minimum Value Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 4/21 Register (hereinafter referred to as MVR) issued vide Departmental Letter No.5275 dated 16.12.2015, which has been acquired for National Highway No.80 as per Notification dated 11.01.2019 published in Extraordinary Gazette of India dated 12.01.2019 of Mauja Karhariya Thana 27 in Munger District as the Respondents have refused to do it in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as RFCTLARR Act); (v) for issuance of writ of mandamus for directing the Respondents to pay adequate, reasonable and justified compensation for his land acquired by National Highway Authorities for construction of NH-80; vi) for issuance of writ of mandamus for directing the Respondents to apply the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 5/21 to as RFCTLARR Act, 2013) and pay interest on the amount of compensation @ 12% and the market value of the land from the date of land acquisition under Section 3D(3) on 12.01.2019, i.e., the date of Notification in the Extraordinary Gazette of India till the date of payment of compensation of the land of the Petitioner acquired by the Respondent Authority; (vii) for any other relief reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 3. This order be read in continuation of the order dated 05.05.2026 where the entire facts already stand incorporated as a result whereof, the original file relating to Arbitration Case No. 05 of 2021 (Ajit Mahto vs. State) was summoned from the Court of Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger. 4. The land of the petitioner has been acquired for the purpose of widening of the National Highway – 80 (Munger – Mirza Chowki Four Lane) which ultimately led to the Arbitration Case No. 05 of 2021 (Ajit Mahto vs. The State & Ors.). Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 6/21 5. The contention in the writ petition is that without following the Section 26 of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (henceforth for short, ‘the 2013 Act’) read with Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (henceforth for short, ‘the 1956 Act’) which deals with the determination of the market value of land as also the amount that is to be payable as compensation; the Six Men Committee of which three members did not even signed decided the compensation amount. 6. Section 26 of ‘the 2013 Act’ read as follows: 26. Determination of market value of land by Collector.-(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the market value of the land, namely:- (a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or (b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 7/21 (c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of Section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public private partnership projects. whichever is higher: Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under Section 11.” 7. Again, Section 3G of ‘the 1956 Act’ read as follows: 3-G. Determination of amount payabie as compensation. - (1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shail be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. (2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 8/21 acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent. of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land. (3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. (4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3-C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land. (5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 9/21 either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. (7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration- (a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3-A; (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land; (c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 10/21 in any manner, or his earnings; (d) if, in consequences consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change.” 8. Earlier, the petitioner moved before this Court in CWJC No. 14297 of 2024 (Ajit Mahto vs. NHAI & Ors.). It was disposed of on 21.01.2025 by a Coordinate Bench allowing him to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file it afresh with proper prayer and pleadings (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition). 9. This followed the present petition. 10. The multifold submissions have come forward on behalf of the petitioner through his learned Senior counsel, Mr. Giri which includes: “(i) Section 26 of ‘the 2013 Act’ and Section 3G of ‘the 1956 Act’ have not been followed; (ii) the six members committee has no authority to decide the compensation amount; (iii) the Arbitrator had no business to revive the Arbitration Case No. 05 of 2021 once it was disposed Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 11/21 of on 18.04.2023.” 11. Learned Senior counsel has taken this Court to the letter no. 162 dated 11.02.2021 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department (Land Acquisition Directorate, Bihar, Patna) (henceforth for short, ‘the Revenue Department’) to show that the Additional Chief Secretary directed all the Collectors of the districts not to constitute/decide the compensation amount on the basis of Six Members Committee and it was informed that clause 9 relating to the constitution of the committee now stands deleted. 12. The letter dated 11.02.2021 issued by ‘the Revenue Department’ is incorporated hereinbelow: i=kad&14@Mh0,y0,0 ,y0,0,DV ¼fu/kkZj.k lfefr½&19@2017 162@jk0 fcgkj ljdkj jktLo ,oa Hkwfe lq/kkj foHkkx ¼Hkw&vtZu funs'kky;½ izs"kd] foosd dqekj flag] vij eq[; lfpoA lsok esa] lHkh lekgrkZ] fcgkjA iVuk] fnukad%& 11-02-2021 fo"k;%& fofHkUu dsUnzh; ,oa jktdh; ifj;kstuk gsrq vftZr@vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe dk nj fu/kkZj.k ds fy, legrkZ dh v/;{krk esa mfpr izfrdj] iquokZlu vkSj iquO;ZoLFkkiu lfefr dk xBuA izlax%& jktLo ,oa Hkwfe lq/kkj foHkkx dk i=kad&450] fnukad&12-04- 2017 Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 12/21 egk'k;] mi;qZDr fo"k;d izklafxd i= ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd RFCTIARR Act- 2013 dh /kkjk&26 esa lekgrkZ ds }kjk Hkwfe ds cktkj ewY; (Market Value) dk vfHkfu/kkZj.k djus dk izko/kku gSA mDr vkyksd esa izklafxd i= ds }kjk fofHkUu dsUnzh; ,oa jktdh; ifj;kstuk gsrq vftZr@vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe dk nj fu/kkZj.k ds fy, lekgrkZ dh v/;{krk esa mfpr izfrdj] iquokZlu vkSj iquO;ZoLFkkiu lfefr dk xBu djrs gq, izklafxd i= ds dafMdk&9 ds }kjk ,u0,p0 vf/kfu;e&1956 ,oa jsyos fo'ks"k vf/kfu;e 2008 ds rgr~ vtZuk/khu@vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe ds izd`fr ,oa fdLe fu/kkZj.k fd;s tkus dk funs'k Hkstk x;k FkkA izklafxd i= ds mijksDr of.kZr dafMdk&9 dh leh{kk dh x;hA leh{kk ds dze esa ik;k x;k fd dfri; ekeyksa esa ,u0,p0,DV dh /kkjk&3G(3) ds rgr competent authority ds }kjk iapkV ?kks"k.kk ds le; lekgrkZ dh v/;{krk esa xfBr N% lnL;h; lfefr dh vuq'kalk ugha ekuh tkrh gS vkSj fcuk fdlh oS/kkfud vkSfpR; ds legkRrkZ dks vuko';d :i ls U;kf;d ekeyksa esa i{kdkj cuk;k tkrk gSA iz'kklfud n`f"Vdks.k ls Hkh lekgrkZ dh v/;{krk esa xfBr lefr dh vuq'kalk ij Hkwfe lq/kkj mi lekgrkZ Lrj ds inkf/kdkjh (CALA) }kjk vafre fu.kZ; fy;k tkuk iz'kklfud inlksiku ds izfrdwy gSA vr,o mijksDr ifjis{; esa leh{kksijkar izklafxd i= dh dafMdk&9 dks foyksfir fd;k tkrk gSA bl laca/k esa izklafxd i= dks bl gn rd la'kksf/kr le>k tk;A vuqjks/k gS fd rnuqlkj dkjZokbZ djus dh d`ik dh tk;A fo'oklHkktu g0@& ¼foosd dqekj flag½ vij eq[; lfpoA (emphasis added) 13. The submission is that on 18.04.2023, the Arbitrator cum Divisional Commissioner, Munger disposed of the Land Acquisition Case No. 05 of 2021 (Ajit Mahto vs. The State and Ors.) recording that the compensation decided by the competent Officer-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Munger stands set aside and further directed the competent Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 13/21 authority to decide the matter afresh. 14. Learned Senior counsel submits that instead of acting under the Land Acquisition Act, Six Men Committee sat and took help of the available documents/CD/drone map of ‘the NHAI’/photographs and stamped the earlier recommendation/compensation of the land vide the Committee’s decision dated 15.03.2024 (Annexure – P/7 to the petition). 15. Learned Senior Counsel submits that worse, without the petitioner even filing any fresh petition challenging the said Six Members Committee report, which may have necessitated registration of fresh case, the Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger suo moto revived already disposed of Land Acquisition Case No. 05 of 2021. The submission is that he had no jurisdiction to revive the already disposed of matter and certainly, acted contrary to the law of the land. 16. The submissions is that thereafter without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the Arbitrator passed an order on 25.10.2024 directing the competent authority-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Munger to ensure payment of compensation to him. Learned Senior counsel submits that to Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 14/21 give legality to the said order, the Arbitrator falsely recorded that the petitioner is represented though the order was passed behind his back. 17. This order dated 25.10.2024 has been brought by the petitioner by way of Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2025 as according to him, till the filing of the writ petition, he had no knowledge about the passing of the said order. 18. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the writ petition, the challenge was to the earlier order passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Munger dated 18.04.2023 in Land Acquisition Case No. 05 of 2021 as also the Six Men Committee recommendation dated 15.03.2024. However, since the certified copy of the order dated 18.04.2023 was not part with the writ petition, to remove the defect pointed out by the Patna High Court’s Office. ‘Chirkut’ was filed before the court of Arbitrator to procure the certified copy. It was then that the petitioner came to know about the passing of the order dated 25.10.2024 which in the aforesaid circumstance has been challenged by way of Interlocutory Application and is now part of the prayer portion. 19. This Court on an earlier occasion took note of the fact that order dated 25.10.2024 shows that the petitioner was Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 15/21 represented while the consistent stand of the petitioner through his Senior counsel was that neither he had any knowledge about the revival of the Land Acquisition Case No. 05 of 2021 nor he made any application and at no point of time, he was noticed and entire proceeding was initiated/concluded behind his back. 20. On the other hand, the contention of the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger in his affidavit is/was that the petitioner’s counsel was present at the time of hearing and only after hearing the parties, the order in question has been passed. 21. In view of contradictory stand taken by the parties, this Court called for the original file relating to Land Acquisition Case No. 05 of 2021 from the Court of the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger. 22. Today, on call, the learned State counsel provided the original file of the Arbitration Case No. 05 of 2021. A perusal of it would show that the petitioner’s counsel earlier was present till the order dated 18.04.2023 was passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Munger. 23. Later, only paper available in the file relating to Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 16/21 the petitioner is an application dated 29.01.2024 which was received in the office of the Arbitrator on 07.02.2024 wherein, a request was made that since the case has been disposed of, his land has been acquired, the petitioner be paid the compensation which has not been given to him. 24. No further document/appearance slip/any other paper of the petitioner is/are available on the record to show his presence in the subsequent proceeding which was revived by the Arbitrator suo moto. 25. On the other hand, the earlier order dated 15.10.2024 (prior to passing of the final order dated 25.10.2024) would show that upon receiving the Six Men Committee’s recommendation, the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger took up the matter suo moto. The record shows that the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Munger put forward his objection that once the Arbitrator has passed an order on 18.04.2023, he has no business to take up the matter again. However, overruling the said objection, he went ahead and directed ‘the NHAI’, Munger to file its reply to the Six Members Committee recommendation. 26. It was thereafter taken up on 24.10.2024. The Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 17/21 short order shows that the Divisional Commissioner once again recorded the presence of the petitioner, the Project Director, ‘the NHAI’ as also the State counsel beside the District Land Acquisition Officer, Munger and after recording that the office has received the petition of the concerned competent authority, it was adjourned for the next day for order. 27. On 25.10.2024, after recording the presence of the petitioner beside the Project Director, ‘the NHAI’, the State counsel and ‘the DLAO’, Munger, he, thereafter, went ahead and accepting the Six Men Committee’s report, as recorded above, direction was given to ensure the identification of the landholder for the payment of the compensation. 28. Learned State counsel as also learned counsel representing ‘the NHAI’ have gone through the original file relating to the Arbitration Case No. 05 of 2021. The facts that have been recorded in the earlier paragraphs of the present order has been endorsed by them inasmuch as the only document of the petitioner that is present after the disposal of the case on 18.04.2023 is the request dated 29.01.2024 for payment of compensation. Long thereafter, and once the Six Men Committee’s recommendation was rejected, in the month of October, 2024, the case was revived by the Divisional Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 18/21 Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was put on notice or he was made aware of the revival of the Arbitration Case No. 05 of 2021. 29. This Court has further taken note of the Revenue Department’s letter dated 11.02.2021 by which it has already directed all the Collectors not to take recourse to Six Men Committee recommendation and clause – 9 to this effect was deleted. Further, Section 26 of ‘the 2013 Act’ and Section 3G of ‘the 1956 Act’ envisage the guidelines on how to grant compensation. Clearly, the direction of the Revenue Department as also the aforesaid sections were bypassed. 30. The worst part of all these development is/are the false narrative given by the Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger that the petitioner appeared in the proceeding which is/are not supported by his office’s own file relating to Arbitration Case No. 05 of 2021 as it has been perused by the Court. There is no direction of the Arbitrator showing the reason for the revival of the disposed of case and/or direction to notice the petitioner. There is no appearance slip of the petitioner either. Recording the petitioner’s presence can in no way support the illegal order passed by the Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 19/21 Arbitrator. 31. If the Arbitrator acts in such manner, this Court wonders what will happen to the helpless land owners whose land stands acquired, their prayer for appropriate compensation ignored, an illegal Six Members Committee (constituted by the respondents) recommendation is accepted which followed the order. 32. It is to be noted that the letter dated 11.02.2021 of the Revenue Department has come in the affidavit of ‘the NHAI’ which has been taken note of by this Court. The record further shows that ‘the NHAI’ even objected to the revival of the Arbitration Case No. 05 of 2021 which stands recorded in the order of the Arbitrator and perused by the Court in the original file. 33. Though this Court refrains from making any comment on the conduct of the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger, can only observe that being the highest authority of the said division and having been given the solemn responsibility of deciding the matter to ensure just and fair compensation to a landholder who has lost his land to the acquisition, the least that is expected is that he/she shall act strictly in line with the provisions of Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 20/21 law/circular/letters/guidelines and certainly cannot cat in defiance of the law. 34. Having recorded the facts of the case, the only conclusion that can be drawn in the aforesaid circumstances is that the order dated 25.10.2024 in Arbitration Case No. 05 of 2021 (Ajit Mahto vs. The State) is an illegal order passed behind the back of the petitioner. Further, after the deletion of clause – 9 vide letter dated 11.02.2021 of ‘the Revenue Department, Bihar, Patna,’ the Six Men Committee report is also an illegal recommendation. Accordingly, both the recommendation of the Six Men Committee as also the order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Munger are hereby set aside. 35. Though this Court wanted to impose cost upon the respondents for the arbitrariness and the illegality that has been committed in the matter against the petitioner despite the direction of the Revenue Department in the year 2021; it refrains from doing so with the hope that this time they will not resort to an illegal act, shall not be revengeful and further shall act only in accordance with law in deciding the case. 36. Needless to add, before taking the decision, the petitioner has to be given an opportunity of putting forward his Patna High Court CWJC No.4771 of 2025 dt.14-07-2026 21/21 view before the respondents take a decision. 37. The petitioner shall be filing a petition alongwith the order of this Court before the respondent no. 4, the competent authority-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Munger, Bihar in next four weeks who shall be acting in the matter strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date, the copy of the order reaches his/her table. 38. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No cost. 39. The original file relating to the Land Acquisition Case No. 05 of 2021 which was summoned from the Court of the Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger is handed over to Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, learned AC to SC-7 so that it reaches the concerned office. Adnan/- (Rajiv Roy, J) AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 16.07.2026 Transmission Date