ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the N.H.A.I. and learned counsel for the State. 2. C.W.J.C. No. 5591 of 2023, C.W.J.C. No. 5592 of 2023, C.W.J.C. No. 5593 of 2023, C.W.J.C. No. 5594 of 2023, C.W.J.C. No. 5596 of 2023, C.W.J.C. No. 5597 of 2023, C.W.J.C. No. 5644 of 2023, C.W.J.C. No. 5855 of 2023 and C.W.J.C. No. 6002 of 2023, in all the cases, the questions directly and substantially are identical, therefore, all the above said writ petitions have been decided to dispose of by the common order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land of all the writ petitioners was acquired under Bihta Elevated Corridor Construction Project. The said lands are situated in Mauza-Painal, Revenue P.S. No. 70 under different khatas and plots as different areas. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Annexure-2 is the letter issued under Section 3E of the National Highways Act, 1956, [48 of 1956] (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1956’) relating to L.A. Case No. 54 of 2020-21 with regard to Revenue P.S. No. 70 for Mauza-Painal in which it is being indicated that compensation amount has been fixed and it has been decided that upon production of the documents as mentioned in Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [Act No. 30 of 2013] (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2013’), the amount shown in the said notice shall be handed over to the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the notification for the acquisition has been made on 18.08.2021 and within 21 days, the petitioners have raised objection that the value of the land has not been properly determined, as it ought to be determined treating their land as commercial. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the objections were filed within 21 days on which no decision has been taken and without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the compensation amount has been fixed in arbitrary manner and ignoring the provision of law for the purpose of determination of the market value laid down in the Act of 1956 as well as in the Act of 2013. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the N.H.A.I. submits that the acquisition has been made under Section 3A of the Act of 1956, therefore, remedy lies to the petitioners under the Act of 1956. Therefore, their objection is to be treated under the Act of 1956 only. 8. It is very much clear in Section 3G(7) of the Act of 1956 that the competent authority or the arbitrator shall determine the compensation amount taking into consideration the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification and the said determination has to be made in the light of Section 26 of the Act of 2013, where provision of determination of market value of the land has been prescribed minutely. 9. It is made clear that the Act of 1956 and the Act of 2013 have to apply simultaneously and in the Act of 1956, if any provision is silent, then the applicability of the Act of 2013 is applicable. 10. In this view of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the competent authority to pass a reasoned and speaking order in the light of Section 3G(7) of the Act of 1956, fixing the market value of the land granting opportunity to the petitioners taking help from the Act of 2013 within 60 days from the date of production of this order and then process of payment shall be initiated and make payment upon verification of the documents of the petitioners within further prescribed period under law.