- (1.) Sri M.D.Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Singh appearing for the petitioners contends that the law stands settled by the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Chandrasekaran v. Administrative Officer, 2012 12 SCC 133, that a subsequent purchaser of the land subject matter of acquisition is a person interested to claim compensation still for no rhyme and reason and without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, petitioner's claim has been rejected by the order dated 13.12.2017, impugned in this petition. He points out that the view taken by the authority while rejecting the representation that after publication of the declaration under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, the land stands vested free from all encumbrances to the Central Government and the erstwhile owner was left with no right or title so as to transfer the same and thus, the petitioner, subsequent purchaser, would not be entitled to any compensation, is totally erroneous in law inasmuch as though the subsequent purchaser does not have any right to challenge the acquisition proceedings on any ground but certainly he is a person interested to claim compensation.
(2.) From a perusal of the impugned order, we do not find any other reason except for one pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner for rejecting the claim of the petitioner which prima-facie is not sustainable in law.
(3.) Let the respondent no. 4, Competent Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956/Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Ghazipur show cause by filing a counter affidavit within four weeks why the impugned order may not be quashed and direction be issued to make payment of compensation to the petitioners.;