1. Both these writ petitions have been filed for quashing the orders dated 20.09.2017 passed by the respondent No.4 in Land Acquisition Appeal Case No. 24/2017 and Land Acquisition Appeal Case No. 23 of 2017 respectively whereby the said respondent being an Arbitrator, has allowed the aforesaid appeal cases preferred by the private respondents (the respondent No.6 in both the writ petitions) for enhancement of compensation. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the State-respondents to call back letter No. 468/L.A dated 28.04.2016 issued by the respondent No.5. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ‘Parti Kadim’ land of the private respondents appertaining to Khata No. 56, Plot No. 1138, Village2 Dumarjor, P.S. No. 28, District-Bokaro, measuring an area of 0.2450 Acre and 0.1750 Acre (total 0.42 Acre) was acquired for widening of NH-32 and the compensation for the same was also paid to them by the order of the respondent No.5 passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 10/2011-12 as per the market value of agricultural land prevailing at the time of publication of notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1956’]. Thereafter, the private respondents preferred appeal separately before the respondent No.4 for enhancement of compensation which were registered as Land Acquisition Appeal Case No. 24/2017 and Land Acquisition Appeal Case No. 23 of 2017 respectively. During the pendency of the said appeal, several villagers made representations before the respondent No.3 claiming that the nature of the acquired land was residential and not agricultural. Thereafter, a seven-member-committee was constituted by the respondent No.3 of which the respondent No.4 was also a member. The said committee conducted a joint spot verification and submitted the report to the respondent No.4 observing that the land in question is residential in nature. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 passed the impugned order dated 20.09.2017 directing the respondent No.5 to pay compensation for the acquired land treating the same to be residential and not agricultural land. It is further submitted that pursuant to order dated 20.09.2017, the respondent No.5 prepared an amended award and vide letter No. 1306 dated 18.11.2017, asked the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of Rs.42,96,325/-. It is further submitted that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India has issued comprehensive guidelines for acquisition of the land for National Highways Projects. It is further submitted that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India has issued comprehensive guidelines for acquisition of the land for National Highways Projects. As per Para 10(iii) of the said guidelines, the nature of the land, as recorded in the revenue records on the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956, has to be taken into consideration for payment of compensation. It is further submitted that the respondent No.4 himself was one of the members of the said committee and as such he had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 20.09.2017 on the principle of “No one can be a Judge in his own cause”. It is also submitted that the said committee had no right to change the nature of the land after preparation of the award and payment of the compensation under the provisions of the Act, 1956. The impugned order dated 20.09.2017 is thus illegal and the same is liable to be quashed. 3. Per-contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents submits that the respondent No.4 while passing the impugned order dated 20.09.2017, not only relied upon the report of the seven-member committee, but also took into consideration the report of the Circle Officer dated 02.03.2016 wherein the said land was described as a residential land. The respondent No.4 also found that the compensation for the adjacent plots i.e. Plot Nos. 1143 & 1134 was paid treating the same as residential plots. It is further submitted that merely due to the fact that the respondent No.4 was one of the members of the said committee, does not vitiate the entire order. It is also submitted that the similarly situated persons have been paid compensation on the basis of the report of the seven-member-committee and as such the petitioner may not be allowed to object the claim of the private respondents. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The respondent No.4 while passing the impugned order dated 20.09.2017, acted as an Arbitrator to hear the appeal preferred by the aggrieved persons against determination of compensation. However, the respondent No.4 was also inducted as a member in an administrative capacity in the said committee constituted by the respondent No.3. The respondent No.4 while passing the impugned order dated 20.09.2017, acted as an Arbitrator to hear the appeal preferred by the aggrieved persons against determination of compensation. However, the respondent No.4 was also inducted as a member in an administrative capacity in the said committee constituted by the respondent No.3. Though the petitioner has raised objection to the report of the seven-member-committee contending that the respondent No.4 was one of the members of the said committee, yet it has failed to controvert the factual finding arrived at by the said committee by placing sufficient evidence before this Court. It appears that four members out of seven members including the respondent No.4 have signed the said report. Only because the respondent No.4 was the member of the said committee, the entire report does not vitiate. The petitioner has failed to show any favoritism on the part of the respondent No.4. It has also failed to show that the respondent No.4 had any pecuniary and personal interest in the subject matter of the dispute. The maxim “nemo judex in causa sua” applies where there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of others that there is likelihood of biasness affecting the decision. The report prepared by the seven-member committee was not of such a nature where the respondent No.4 had to render his personal opinion, rather the same was prepared on the basis of spot verification made by the committee. It further appears that the finding of the respondent No.4 is not only based on the report of the said committee, but also taking into consideration the report of the Circle Officer as well as the fact that the compensation for the adjacent plots in the area was paid treating the same as residential plots. 5. Moreover, the private respondents have claimed that the similarly situated persons have been paid compensation as per the value of residential plot on the basis of the report of the seven-member-committee. The said fact has not been specifically denied by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince this Court that the land in question was vacant land and as such the same could not be equated with the land over which building was constructed. I am not impressed with the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince this Court that the land in question was vacant land and as such the same could not be equated with the land over which building was constructed. I am not impressed with the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. The nature of the land is not decided on the basis of the construction made thereupon or otherwise, rather it is decided according to the area/locality of the land. 6. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the present writ petitions so as to warrant any interference with the impugned orders dated 20.09.2017 passed by the respondent No.4 in Land Acquisition Appeal Case No. 24/2017 and Land Acquisition Appeal Case No. 23 of 2017 as well as the subsequent action taken pursuant to the said orders. 7. The present writ petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed.