JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by M. B.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue Department (L.R.) Department. Also heard Mrs. D.D. Barman, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 and Mr. A.R. Shome, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has raised his grievance in respect of nonpayment of land acquisition compensation to him. In this case, it is projected that the petitioner along with his brother, who is the respondent No. 3 herein are the joint owners of two plots of land, being (i) land measuring 0.013 Are, covered by Dag No. 4 of P.P. No. 425, and (ii) land measuring 0.008 Are covered by Dag No. 5 of P.P. No. 427, both in village-Phukanphadia, Mouza-Jakaichuk, Dist. Sivsagar. The said land was acquired for the construction of 4 (four) lane NH-37. 3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that although National Highway Authority has deposited the entire assessed compensation of Rs. 1,10,24,273.48/-, the State Government has not released the aforesaid money to the petitioner. However, as all similarly situated persons have received their respective compensation, the petitioner by submitting a representation dated 06.10.2016 to the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar, had also prayed for disbursement of his share of compensation for the acquired land. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent authorities are sitting over the matter without disclosing any reason. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar wherein it has been stated in para-6 thereof that in view of complaints and news items appearing in Assamese dailies regarding over-valuation of the structures standing on land under acquisition, order was issued for spot verification to assess the valuation of the structures. It is also stated therein that as per spot verification report submitted by the officers, several numbers of structures were proposed for re-assessment due to variation in the earlier assessment and that in para-6 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar has taken a stand that the spot verification report suggested for reassessment of the structure valuation which was earlier assessed as Rs.2,07,52,680.00 and that the re-assessment valuation is yet to be received from PWD(B). 4. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar is not the competent authority under the National Highway Act, 1956 and therefore, the said authority had no power to refix the assessment and/or to order for a re-assessment. By referring to a case of Union of India and Another Vs. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 , the learned counsel has submitted that in para 126 of the said judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that “there cannot be an exercise of a power unless such power exists in law.” By further referring to the case of the Purtabpore Co. Ltd. Vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and Others, (1969) 1 SCC 308 , it is submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if the power was with the Cane Commissioner, he alone could have exercised that power and that it was further held that the executive officers entrusted with statutory discretions may in one cases be obliged to take into account consideration of public policy and in some context the policy of a Minister or the Government as a whole when it’s a relevant factor in weighing the policy but this will not absolve them from their duty to exercise their personal judgment in individual cases unless explicit statutory provision has been made for them to be given binding instructions by a superior. 5. Hence, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction be issued for the authorities to release the land acquisition compensation to the petitioner in respect of his share. 6. The learned Standing counsel for the L.R. Department has referred to the provisions of Section 3 (G) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and it is submitted that as per Sub-Section (1) thereof the amount to be paid was required to be determined by order of the competent authority. In this context it is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, who is also the Collector of a District is the head of the District and therefore, as the Collector of the District he is entrusted with the duty to ensure that proper compensation is paid on proper determination on the valuation of the land and structures standing thereon which was acquired for the construction of 4 (four) lane NH-37. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar it is submitted that the authorities had taken note of news item published in newspapers alleging over-valuation of the structures and as a huge public money was involved in the payment of the land acquisition compensation, it was his duty to ensure that a proper and appropriate valuation is determined in respect of compensation to various beneficiaries. The learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department has also referred to the case of Shree Sidhbali Steels & others Vs. State of U.P. & Others, (2011) 3 SCC 193 and it is submitted that the power to do certain acts by an authority also has the power to recall or re-visit such order and that such authority would also have power to revoke the order. 7. It is further submitted that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition) Sivsagar, is definitely an officer subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar as such, the administrative Superior would naturally have the power to interfere in the payment of land acquisition compensation sought to be made after over valuation on the structures assessed for payment. 8. In the present case in hand, it is seen from the notification under S.O.1429(E) dated New Delhi, the 13th April, 2016, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition), Sivsagar, Assam has been designated as the competent authority by permitting objections to be raised before the said authority in the matter of land to be acquired within the stretch of land from km 487.000 to km 538.000 on the National Highway No. 37 in the State of Assam, providing therein that any order made by the competent authority under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3(c) of the National Highways Act, 1956 shall be final. Therefore, from the said notification there appears to be no scope for interference by the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar. Coming to the powers conferred under Section 3(G) of the National Highways Act, 1956, it is seen that the same does not provide for any powers of interference by the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar. Therefore, from the said notification there appears to be no scope for interference by the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar. Coming to the powers conferred under Section 3(G) of the National Highways Act, 1956, it is seen that the same does not provide for any powers of interference by the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar. Under Sub-Section (5) of Section 3(G), it is provided that 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 either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, use of words “either of the parties” would only mean and include the acquiring authority and the land owner. As stated above, by the said notification bearing S.O.1429 (E) dated 13.04.2016, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways had exercised the power and authority in terms of Section 3(c) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition), Sivsagar was declared to be the Competent Authority, therefore, the order made by him under Sub-Section (2) of Section 3(c) is notified to be final, as such, this Court is unable to accept that the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar would fall within the scope and ambit of “either of the parties” appearing under Sub-Section 5 of Section 3(G) of the National Highways Act 1956. 9. Visiting the same issue with another view-point, the scope of interference by a superior authority can only be by way of either an appeal or revision. However, when the same authority which had passed the order facilitating the power exercised to revise the order, the same can be said to be an act of review. Therefore, under the scheme of various laws a superior authority than the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition), Sivsagar, whether it be the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar or any other superior authority cannot exercise power of review because the National Highways Act 1956 does not give even the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition) the power of review. This cannot be confused with a power to correct the order if any error has crept in the order. This cannot be confused with a power to correct the order if any error has crept in the order. The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue (L.R.) Department as well as the learned Government Advocate have not be able to show any provisions in the National Highways Act, 1956 empowering the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar to exercise power of appeal or revision against the assessment of compensation done by the Competent Authority i.e. the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition), Sivsagar. 10. On a reading of the provisions of Section 20 and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, this Court does not find any authorization to the Superior Officer to modify the orders passed by the competent authority. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court if the power to issue any order is given to a particular authority by invoking Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar had no power to negate the order by the competent authority. This court is of the opinion that the power to determine compensation as given to the competent authority appears to this Court to be a quasi judicial function because if any party is aggrieved from the said order, such parties may approach the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Indian National Congress (I) Vs. Institute of Social Welfare (2002) 5 SCC 685 has held that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act has no application where statutory authority is required to act quasi judicially. 11. In view of the discussions above, this Court is unable to accept the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department that the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar had the competence to order revaluation in the light of allegations of over valuation of the structures. Hence, the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar for revaluation of the structures is found to be not sustainable in the eyes of law and the said order cannot create any impediment in the release of the land acquisition compensation to the petitioner herein. Hence, the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar for revaluation of the structures is found to be not sustainable in the eyes of law and the said order cannot create any impediment in the release of the land acquisition compensation to the petitioner herein. In the opinion of this Court, as by the notification issued under the National Highways Act, 1956, no power or authority was given to the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar, he is not competent to pass any orders for re-valuation of the properties as the said power is vested only on “the parties” and that the affected parties can opt for arbitration as provided under Sub-Section (5) of Section 3(G) of the National Highways Act, 1956. 12. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Purtabpore Co. Ltd (supra), this Court is inclined to hold that the Deputy Commissioner, Sivsagar was not authorized to order any re-valuation of compensation and therefore, such order is non-est in the eyes of law. Hence, such order shall not be an impediment to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition), Sivsagar to release payment of the land acquisition compensation determined in favour of the petitioner as the said authority is vested with the responsibility for making such payment as determined by him. 13. In view of the discussions above this writ petition stands allowed. The competent authority i.e. Additional Deputy Commissioner (Land Acquisition), Sivsagar shall now release the compensation due to the petitioner in respect of his share of the hereinbefore referred two plots of land in accordance with law within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, uninfluenced by any order that may have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar for re-valuation or re-assessment of structures, etc in respect of the acquired land.. 14. It is clarified that this order shall not be a bar for “the parties” as provided under Section 5 of Sub-Section 3(G) of National Highways Act, 1956 to take recourse to law. A copy of the order be provided to the learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department as well as to the learned Govt. Advocate Assam.