Ajit Mahto vs The National Highways Authority of India,

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.

(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 16.07.2026
Transmission Date