JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.: - Short reply on behalf of respondent No.4 filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21.7.2010, Annexure P.5 passed by respondent No.1 - Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak-cum-Chairman of the Committee, determining the amount of compensation for the land acquired, on the ground that the same was in violation of Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short, “the Act”). A further prayer has been made for directing respondent No.3 - District Revenue Officer Panipat-cum competent authority to determine the amount of compensation in terms of Section 3-G of the Act by ignoring the said decision. 3. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Panipat. He owned 1/3rd share out of land falling in Rect. No.25, Killa No.9/2, situated within the revenue estate of Village Ganjbarh, District Panipat. The Central Government issued notification under Section 3-A of the Act dated 22.12.2009 for the public purpose of widening of National Highway No.1 from 96.000 Kms. to 100.000 Kms. in Panipat District (Panipat-Jalandhar Section). An area measuring 960.802 sq.meters, comprised in Rect.No.25, Killa No.9/2 was made part of the notification dated 22.12.2009. The petitioner filed objections under Section 3-C of the Act but the same were dismissed and finally notification under Section 3-D of the Act was issued on 20.4.2010. According to the petitioner, the Central Government vide its notification issued under section 3(a) of the Act has specified the District Revenue Officer, Panipat to act as competent authority-cum-Land Acquisition Collector. For the purpose of determining compensation for the acquired land, the competent authority while exercising its powers under Section 3-G of the Act issued notice dated 21.6.2012 to the petitioner and other land owners for submitting their claim. Even a public notice in this regard had been issued and published in the newspaper on 2.8.2012. Since no details or dimensions for the land under acquisition had been mentioned in any of the notifications or the notice, the petitioner submitted an application before the competent authority for providing him the said information. Even a public notice in this regard had been issued and published in the newspaper on 2.8.2012. Since no details or dimensions for the land under acquisition had been mentioned in any of the notifications or the notice, the petitioner submitted an application before the competent authority for providing him the said information. According to the petitioner, on the one hand, the competent authority has initiated the process of determining the compensation for the acquired land by exercising its powers under Section 3-G of the Act whereas on the other hand, the competent authority has already got fixed the market value of the land under acquisition from a committee headed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak which also includes the representative of National Highway Authority of India. The petitioner referred to the letter dated 15.7.2010, Annexure P.4 whereby the competent authority i.e. Respondent No.3 had requested the Deputy Commissioner, Panipat to fix the market value for the land under present acquisition. The petitioner submits that none of the representative of the land owners was ever made part of the aforesaid committee nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to them by the said committee. The Committee headed by respondent No.1 vide its proceedings dated 21.7.2010, Annexure P.5 fixed the market value of the land for Village Ganjbar at Rs.30 lacs per acre and the same was conveyed by the office of Deputy Commissioner Panipat to respondent No.3 vide letter dated 10.8.2010, Annexure P.6 and also to the National Highway Authority who was to pay the compensation. According to the petitioner, since the power to determine compensation vests solely with the competent authority as prescribed under Section 3-G of the Act, the action of the respondents by constituting a committee, fixing and conveying the market value of the land under acquisition to the competent authority without associating the land owners is illegal, arbitrary and violative of mandatory provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court through the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 3-A of the Act is pari materia to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereas Section 3-D of the Act is equivalent to Section 6 of the said Act. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court through the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 3-A of the Act is pari materia to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereas Section 3-D of the Act is equivalent to Section 6 of the said Act. Notification under Section 3-A of the Act was issued on 22.12.2009 which was followed by notification under Section 3-D of the Act on 20.4.2010. Under Section 3(a) of the Act, the Central Government is empowered to notify competent authority who is required to perform functions regarding acquisition and other functions prescribed under the Act. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Panipat was notified to be the competent authority under Section 3(a) of the Act. It was urged that compensation for the land belonging to the petitioner which was acquired had been determined by the committee consisting of Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, District Revenue Officer, Panipat and Manager, Technical, N.H.A.I, PIU, Sonipat whereas the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Panipat alone was competent to decide the quantum of compensation under the Act. Thus, determination of compensation by the Committee was illegal. Reference was made to award dated 17.10.2011, Annexure P.7 relating to construction of building, maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.1 on the stretch of land from 86 kms. to 95.7000 kms. in District Panipat, wherein the arbitrator had determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.11,000/- per square meter. On the aforesaid premises, it was urged that the petitioner was entitled for suitable compensation. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector was one of the members of the committee which had determined the value for the land of the petitioner in Village Ganjbarh at Rs.30 lacs per acre and, therefore, the petitioner could not have urged that the award was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we find that the petition deserves to succeed. 8. Under Section 3G(1) of the Act, where any land is acquired under the Act, the land owner is entitled to receive an amount as compensation which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we find that the petition deserves to succeed. 8. Under Section 3G(1) of the Act, where any land is acquired under the Act, the land owner is entitled to receive an amount as compensation which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. Section 3(a) of the Act defines ‘competent authority’. It reads thus:- “a) ‘competent authority’ means any person or authority authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to perform the functions of the competent authority for such area as may be specified in the notification;” 9. The Central Government is empowered to notify the competent authority. It was not disputed that the District Revenue Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Collector, Panipat had been notified to be the competent authority. The power to determine compensation involves adjudication. The said function would fall within the domain of being quasi judicial and cannot be regarded as ministerial. Once a particular function has been bestowed upon an authority by virtue of a statutory provision, the same is required to be performed by the said authority unless there is some enabling provision which may empower any other authority to whom the same is delegated. In the absence of any such delegation, in the present case, determination of compensation by the committee was legally unsustainable. 10. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.7.2010, Annexure P.5 is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent No.3 to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law.