ORDER : 1. The present case is taken up today through video conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent authorities to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,202/- with suitable interest which has been deducted from the admitted contractual dues of the petitioner in lieu of the amount required to be paid to one Shanti Devi as compensation against her raiyati land which was used by the respondent authorities for completion of the said contract. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 4- the Executive Engineer, National Rural Employment Programme-I (NREP-I) issued NIT in relation to construction of : (A) 1.5 K.M. PCC road from Mcluskiganj P.S. to Chama- Mcluskiganj Main Road (B) 1.3 K.M. PCC Road under Lapra from the house of Govind Saw to Birhor Colony, Mahuatanr (Khelari Block) (hereinafter referred as the said work). The petitioner was awarded the said work and an agreement to that effect was also executed on 09.11.2012 between him and the respondent no. 4. The agreement value of the work was Rs.88,00,748/-. The work was completed within the time frame of six months from the date of agreement. The respondent no. 4, vide letter no. 2015/NREP dated 31.10.2013 communicated the petitioner that as per the order of the respondent no. 2, an amount of Rs.3,00,202/- had to be deducted from his bills of admitted contractual dues in order to make payment of compensation amount in lieu of acquisition of the raiyati land of one Shanti Devi, which has been used for making construction of the road i.e. from Mcluskiganj P.S. to Chama- Mcluskiganj Main Road. It is further submitted that the acquisition of any land is always required to be done by the respondent authorities according to the statutory provisions and hence the compensation for the same is also required to be paid by the respondent authorities. The action of the respondent authorities in deducting an amount Rs.3,00,202/- from the admitted contractual dues of the petitioner in lieu of the amount required to be paid to Shanti Devi as compensation against her raiyati land which was used by the respondent authorities for the completion of the said contract, is highly arbitrary, illegal and violation of law. The action of the respondent authorities in deducting an amount Rs.3,00,202/- from the admitted contractual dues of the petitioner in lieu of the amount required to be paid to Shanti Devi as compensation against her raiyati land which was used by the respondent authorities for the completion of the said contract, is highly arbitrary, illegal and violation of law. It is also submitted that out of the total estimated cost of Rs.88,00,748/-, an amount of Rs.86,45,429/- had been paid to the petitioner and an amount of Rs.1,55,319/- along with the amount of earnest money and security deposit amounting to Rs.8,96,037/- (which was paid by the petitioner at the time of execution of the agreement) have not been paid. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for payment of balance amount of Rs.8,96,037/- and Rs.1,55,319/- i.e. in total, Rs.10,51,356/-. The petitioner represented the respondent no.4 for payment of the said admitted dues on several occasions, however all went in vein. The action of the respondent authorities in not making payment of the admitted dues to the petitioner without any rhyme and reason is also violative of his fundamental rights. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. Pankaj Choudhary, learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-II appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the road was already existing on the land in question and the same was being used for a long time. The said road was required to be upgraded and accordingly the same was done. It is further submitted that Smt. Shanti Devi never objected when the land in question was being used as ‘Aam Rasta’. She raised the objection only when construction of the road was completed and measurement was being done. The matter was enquired by the respondent no. 3- the Circle Officer, Khelari from the concerned Revenue Karamchari, Anchal Amin and the Circle Inspector, Khelari whereafter it was found that the land of Mouza - Konka, Khata No. 19, plot nos. 21, 22, 27, 54 and 55 measuring area of 1.06 acres, 0.07 acre, 0.77 acre, 1.73 acres and 1.26 acres respectively (total area 4.89) acres stands recorded in the name of Mangal Gonjhu S/o Loyala Gonjhu as ‘Kayami’ which was later on purchased by Smt. Shanti Devi through registered sale deed executed in the year 1980. 21, 22, 27, 54 and 55 measuring area of 1.06 acres, 0.07 acre, 0.77 acre, 1.73 acres and 1.26 acres respectively (total area 4.89) acres stands recorded in the name of Mangal Gonjhu S/o Loyala Gonjhu as ‘Kayami’ which was later on purchased by Smt. Shanti Devi through registered sale deed executed in the year 1980. The demand of the said land stands running in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi in Register II and the rent of the land in question has been realized till the year 2011-12. The land in question purchased by Smt. Shanti Devi and one Tulsi Prasad Sao was being used as ‘Aam Rasta’ even before construction of the Pucca Road and the same was constructed twice by the government. It is also submitted that in view of clause 25 mentioned under the heading ‘other conditions of the NIT,’ (annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit dated 07.02.2020 filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2), it would be evident that there was no provision to acquire land by the concerned department with further stipulation that there should not be any hindrance on the issue of acquisition of any land for the said purpose. As per the terms and conditions of the NIT, the tenderers were directed to quote the price on being fully satisfied with due verification of the spot at their own expenses with regard to availability of land as well as the status of the workplace and any claim with regard to price escalation or otherwise was not to be entertained. Smt. Shanti Devi however filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1311 of 2013 seeking compensation for use of her land to the extent of 0.17 acre for construction of the road. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 vide letter no.148(ii) dated 04.06.2013 submitted report before the respondent no.4 mentioning therein that 17 decimals of land in total belonging to Smt. Shanti Devi was used for construction of PCC road relating to NIT No. 02/2012-13. As such in view of the aforesaid clause-25 of the NIT, the respondent no. 4 requested the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (the respondent no.2) to grant permission to make payment of compensation for 17 decimals of land to Smt. Shanti Devi and to deduct the said amount from the bill of the contractor. As such in view of the aforesaid clause-25 of the NIT, the respondent no. 4 requested the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (the respondent no.2) to grant permission to make payment of compensation for 17 decimals of land to Smt. Shanti Devi and to deduct the said amount from the bill of the contractor. Accordingly, the respondent no.-2 granted permission to deduct an amount of Rs.3,00,202/- from the bill of the contractor and to pay the same to Smt. Shanti Devi as compensation. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The respondent no. 2 passed an order for deduction of an amount of Rs.3,00,202/- from the admitted dues of the petitioner for the said work in order to make payment of compensation to Smt. Shanti Devi whose land was partly used for construction of the road i.e. from Mcluskiganj P.S. to Chama- Mcluskiganj Main Road. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has tried to justify the impugned action by putting reliance on the aforsaid clause- 25 of the NIT. I have perused the said clause of the conditions of the NIT according to which the tenderers were required to make spot verification at their own expenses and having been satisfied with the position of workplace and availability of land, were to participate in the said tender and the claim for price escalation etc. was not to be accepted. It has further been provided in the said conditions that since there was no provision of land acquisition and at the same time, the work was also not expected to be delayed, the tenderers were required to participate in the said tender after considering the entire situation taking responsibility of resolving the same. 7. In the present case, it has specifically been admitted in the counter affidavit that there existed a road over the said land since long which was constructed twice and was to be upgraded. It has also been accepted by the respondents that there was no hindrance whatsoever by any person at the time of construction of road. 8. 7. In the present case, it has specifically been admitted in the counter affidavit that there existed a road over the said land since long which was constructed twice and was to be upgraded. It has also been accepted by the respondents that there was no hindrance whatsoever by any person at the time of construction of road. 8. The aforesaid factual admission on the part of the respondents suggests that the contractor has not committed any mistake in executing the work in question, rather the respondents only after filing of the writ petition by Smt. Shanti Devi seeking compensation for such part of her land on which the road was constructed, have taken steps to enquire about the status of the land and thereafter deducted an amount of Rs.3,00,202/- from the admitted dues of the petitioner in order to make payment of compensation to Smt. Shanti Devi. Since the road had already existed over the said land and there was no resistance from the raiyats including Smt. Shanti Devi at the time of initiation of the work, the petitioner being a contractor cannot be held liable for payment of compensation for the same. Had the petitioner not renovated the road pursuant to the NIT, the respondents themselves would have been liable for the payment of compensation, if any, to Smt. Shanti Devi. Hence, they cannot shift their liability to the petitioner for their decision for upgrading the road without proper acquisition. 9. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the respondents are directed to pay the due amount of Rs.3,00,202/- to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that whatever observation has been made in the present order is only with respect to claim of the petitioner for refund of the aforesaid amount and the respondents are at liberty to take any permissible defence towards the claim of Smt. Shanti Devi for payment of compensation. 10. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations.