ALOK KUMAR RATHORE vs UNION OF INDIA

1

CGHC010016552023 2026:CGHC:46849

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 274 of 2023
Judgment Reserved On :24.09.2026.
Judgment Delivered On :05.11.2026.
Alok Kumar Rathore S/o Mannu Lal Rathore Aged About 41 Years R/o
Korba, Tehsil And, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Union Of India Through Ministry of Road Transport And Highway,
Transport Bhawan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi -110001.
2 - Collector Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
3 - Competent Officer Land Acquisition Cum Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)
Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh
4 - N.H.A.I. Through Its Project Implementation Unit Korba, District : Korba,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) :Shri Vivek Mishra, Advocate.
For State/respondent :Shri Shobhit Mishra, Dy GA.
For Respondent No.4 :Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
C A V Order
1. By way of the present petition, the Petitioner has challenged the
impugned award dated 05.08.2022 passed by Competent Authority

2
(Land Acquisition) Cum Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Korba,
District Korba, Chhattisgarh (for short “CALA”) on the ground that he
has not calculated compensation as per Section 26 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “The Act of 2013”) and not
considered the market value thereby calculated the compensation on
the very lower side.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the owner of land
bearing Khasra No 809/2 admeasuring area 0.024 hectare situated at
Village Devlapath Tehsil Barpali/ Kartala, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
and the aforesaid land has been acquired vide award dated 05.08.2022
passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 202207050100006/A-82 years
2021-22 village Devlapath, P.H. No. 7, Tehsil Barpali/ Kartala, District
Korba, Chhattisgarh. The petitioner had filed writ petition before this
Court which was registered as WPC No. 1888/2022 wherein this Court
has passed order on 20.04.2022 directing respondent authorities to
decide the representation of petitioner. The market value of nearest
Village Pharaswani is 1060/- and as per Section 26 of the Act of 2013,
the rate of Village Pharaswani would be applicable but the higher rate
has not been taken into account for the purpose of calculating
compensation. Hence this writ petition.

3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that CALA has calculated
the compensation without following the provision of Section 26 (1) (b)
of the Act of 2013, the relevant part of Section is reproduced as under:-
“26. Determination of market value of land by Collector:-
(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in
assessing and determining the market value of the land,
namely:-
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) for registration of sale
deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may be, in the
area, where the land is situated; or
b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated
in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon
under sub-section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition
of lands for private companies or for public private
partnership projects,
whichever is higher:
Provided that the date for determination of market value
shall be the date on which the notification has been
issued under section II……...”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 26 (1) (b) of the
Act of 2013 is mandatory in nature as according to the said section, the
market value of the property is required to be considered and the
compensation should be calculated on the basis of value of similar type
of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity area.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that village Devlapath is
nearest village and market value of village Devlapath is Rs.570/- and

4
market value of village Pharswani is Rs.1060/-. He submits that as per
Section 26 of the Act of 2013, higher rate of market value is to be
applied while calculating compensation. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that there are various enactments which regulate the
Act of 2013 such as The National Highways Act, 1956, The Electricity
Act, 2003, the Railways Act, 1989 etc.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance in the matter of
Santhakumar vs. State of Kerela and Others passed by the Kerela High
Court at Ernakulam reported in {2016 SCC OnLine Ker 15424} ,
paragraph 17 of which reads as under:-
“17. In the above analysis, I find that the determination
of market value in Ext.P3 Award is vitiated by
procedural irregularities and illegalities and the Award
and all the orders issued, on the basis of the said
Award, are liable to be set aside and I do so. The
matters will stand remitted back to the District Collector
and he shall redetermine the market value of all the
properties involved in these three writ petitions, strictly
in compliance with the statutory requirements under
Clauses (a) to (c) of Section 26 of the Act. It is made
clear that it is incumbent upon the District Collector to
fix the market value at whichever is found higher in the
enquiry, as contemplated under Section 26 of the Act.
The redetermination shall be made within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard
to the petitioners. ”

5
7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.4 submits that while passing the
award, the learned CALA calculated the interest at the rate of 12% per
annum as is clearly evidenced by the calculation chart at Serial No. 5 of
the award. The record explicitly demonstrates that an amount of Rs.
68,550/- was determined as interest and was included in the final
award as per section 30(3) of the Act of 2013. Therefore, the
contention of the petitioner regarding non-payment of the interest has
not substance. Further, grievance of the petitioner cannot be redressed
by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there is an
alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 3G(5) of
the National Highways Act, 1956. He submits that the said proposition
is no longer res integra as this Court in WA No.423 of 2020 {Puriram
Kashyap vs. State of Chhattisgarh} held in paragraph 8 & 9 as under:-
“ 8.There is no dispute with regard to the Act, under
which, lands of the Appellants were acquired. Bare
perusal of the relief as extracted above would show that
grievance raised by the Appellants are with regard to
the quantum of amount of compensation. Under Section
3G (5) of the Act, 1956, the Central Government
appoints an Arbitrator for deciding the grievance of
either party with respect to the amount of compensation.
It was brought to the notice of this Court that the
Commissioner / Additional Commissioner of the Division
has been appointed by the Central Government to be
'Arbitrator' to decide the applications filed challenging
the quantum of compensation. The order passed by this

6
Court in WA No. 07 of 2019 has considered the market
values based on the guidelines and decided the issue in
favour of the Appellants therein."
9. "In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in
order passed by the learned Single Judge relegating the
Appellants to approach the Competent Authority under
Section 3G (5) of the Act, 1956 by filing appropriate
application in this regard. Learned counsel for the
Appellants submits that three weeks time be granted to
the Appellants to file appropriate application before
Competent Authority under Section 3G (5) of the Act,
1956. In view of the above submission, we grant liberty
to the Appellants to raise their dispute in terms of
Section 3G (5) of the Act, 1956 within a period of 'three
weeks' from today and the Commissioner / Additional
Commissioner to decide the dispute at the earliest
preferably within a further period of 'three months' in
accordance with law keeping in mind the order passed
by this Court in WA No. 07 of 2019.”
8. Learned State counsel submits that the contesting party in this case is
Respondent No.4 and they are supporting the submission of
Respondent No.4.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the petition carefully.
10. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 3G(5) of
the National Highways Act, 1956, which provides as follows:
“3G. Determination of amount payable as
compensation.— (5) If the amount determined by the

7
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.
17.A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the
legislature has provided a specific mechanism for resolving disputes
concerning the amount of compensation determined by the Competent
Authority under the National Highways Act, 1956. Where either of the
parties is dissatisfied with the amount so determined, the dispute may
be referred to the arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. The
statutory remedy is intended to enable the aggrieved party to seek an
independent determination of the amount payable as compensation in
accordance with law.
18.In the present case, the substance of the petitioner's grievance is that
the market value of the acquired land has not been properly assessed
and that the compensation awarded to him is inadequate. The
petitioner seeks consideration of the higher market value allegedly
prevailing in the nearby village of Pharaswani and contends that the
principles governing the determination of market value under Section
26 of the Act of 2013 have not been properly applied by the Competent
Authority. Thus, the controversy raised in the present petition
principally concerns the determination of the market value and the
consequential quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner.

8
19.In view of the nature of the dispute raised by the petitioner and the
statutory remedy available under Section 3G(5) of the National
Highways Act, 1956, this Court finds that the petitioner may avail the
remedy of arbitration for redressal of his grievance regarding the
quantum of compensation. The question as to whether the market
value adopted by the Competent Authority is proper, whether the
market value of similar land situated in the nearest village or vicinity
area requires consideration, and whether the compensation determined
under the impugned award calls for any enhancement are matters
which may be raised before the competent arbitrator, subject to the
applicable statutory provisions and the evidence placed on record.
20.
The aforesaid view also finds support from the decision rendered by
the Division Bench of this Court in Puriram Kashyap (supra), wherein
the Division Bench declined to interfere with the order relegating the
landowners to the remedy available under Section 3G(5) of the
National Highways Act, 1956. The Division Bench granted liberty to the
aggrieved landowners to raise their disputes concerning compensation
before the competent authority under the said provision. The principle
emerging from the aforesaid decision is that a dispute relating to the
quantum of compensation arising out of acquisition under the National
Highways Act, 1956, may appropriately be considered through the
statutory arbitration mechanism provided therein.

9
21. So far as the grievance concerning the payment of interest is
concerned, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 has
submitted that the Competent Authority has already awarded interest at
the rate of 12% per annum and that an amount of Rs. 68,550/- has
been included towards interest in the calculation chart forming part of
the impugned award dated 05.08.2022. It is submitted that the said
amount has been calculated with reference to Section 30(3) of the Act
of 2013 and has been duly incorporated into the award.
22.Having regard to the aforesaid submission and the calculation chart
referred to by learned counsel for respondent No. 4, the record
indicates that an amount of Rs. 68,550/- has been included towards
interest in the impugned award. Consequently, the petitioner's
grievance, insofar as it relates to the alleged complete non-payment of
interest, does not survive in the form in which it has been advanced,
subject to verification of the correctness of the calculation and actual
payment of the amount awarded. If the petitioner disputes the
adequacy or correctness of the interest calculation or raises any
consequential grievance concerning the amount payable, it shall be
open to him to raise the same before the appropriate forum in
accordance with law.
23.It is clarified that this Court has not examined the correctness of the
market value adopted by the Competent Authority, nor has it expressed
any opinion as to whether the rate of Rs. 1,060/- applicable to Village

10
Pharaswani ought to have been adopted for determining compensation
in respect of the petitioner's land situated at Village Devlapath. These
are matters that may be considered by the competent arbitrator,
subject to the applicable statutory provisions, the nature of the
acquisition, the relevant notification and the evidence produced by the
parties. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all legally permissible
grounds concerning the determination of market value and the
quantum of compensation before the competent arbitrator.
24.
In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the law laid
down by the Division Bench of this Court in Puriram Kashyap (supra),
this Court is not inclined to adjudicate the dispute concerning the
quantum of compensation in the present writ petition, when the
petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy available under Section
3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
25.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioner to approach the competent arbitrator appointed by the
Central Government under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act,
1956, by filing an appropriate application raising his grievances
concerning the determination of market value and the quantum of
compensation awarded under the impugned award dated 05.08.2022.
26.In the event the petitioner avails the aforesaid statutory remedy, the
competent arbitrator shall consider the claim of the petitioner on its own
merits, in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of

11
hearing to the concerned parties. The arbitrator shall independently
examine the grounds raised by the petitioner, including the applicability
of the relevant statutory provisions and the material relied upon in
support of the claim for determination or enhancement of
compensation. Nothing observed in the present order shall be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the petitioner's
claim.
27.It is further clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon the
petitioner's entitlement to any enhanced compensation, and all
contentions available to the parties in that regard are left open to be
considered by the competent arbitrator in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Avinash

The date when the
The date when the
The date when the judgment is
judgment is reserved
judgment is
uploaded on the website
pronounced
Operative Full
24.09.2026 05.11.2026 ------ 05.11.2026