The Patna High Court has set aside the recommendation of a Six-Man Committee and an order passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Munger, holding that the compensation process adopted for land acquired for the widening of National Highway-80 was contrary to law. Justice Rajiv Roy ruled that the proceedings violated the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the National Highways Act, 1956, and a 2021 circular issued by the Bihar Revenue Department abolishing the practice of determining compensation through Six-Man Committees.
The petitioner challenged the determination of compensation for his land acquired for the Munger–Mirza Chowki four-laning project, contending that the authorities had ignored the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 26 of the 2013 Act and Section 3G of the National Highways Act. He argued that although the Divisional Commissioner had earlier set aside the compensation determination in April 2023, the authorities once again relied on a Six-Man Committee’s recommendation dated 15 March 2024 to reaffirm the earlier assessment.
The Court noted that the Bihar Revenue Department had, by a circular dated 11 February 2021, specifically directed all Collectors not to determine compensation on the basis of Six-Man Committee recommendations and had deleted the relevant clause authorising such committees. Despite this, the authorities bypassed both the statutory provisions and the departmental circular while assessing compensation.
Examining the original records of Arbitration Case, the High Court also found that the Arbitrator had suo motu revived a case that had already been disposed of, without issuing notice to the petitioner. Although the order dated 25 October 2024 recorded the petitioner’s presence, the original file contained no appearance slip, notice, or other material indicating that he had participated in the revived proceedings. The Court held that the order had been passed behind the petitioner’s back and described the recording of his presence as unsupported by the official record.
Expressing concern over the manner in which the proceedings were conducted, Justice Roy observed that an Arbitrator entrusted with determining fair compensation for acquired land is expected to act strictly in accordance with the law and cannot disregard statutory provisions, government circulars, or established procedures. The Court remarked that if arbitrators act in such a manner, landowners who lose their property to acquisition would be left without effective protection.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed both the Six-Man Committee’s recommendation and the order dated 25 October 2024 passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner. While noting that the case warranted imposition of costs because of the arbitrariness and illegality committed by the authorities, the Court refrained from doing so in the hope that the respondents would now act strictly in accordance with law.
The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Competent Authority-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Munger, within four weeks. It further directed the authority to reconsider the compensation claim after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and to pass a fresh decision, preferably within three months, in accordance with the statutory framework.
