Roshan Kumar vs The Union of India
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9902 of 2026
======================================================
Roshan Kumar Son of Late Bhagwan Lal Sah, Resident of Mohalla-Simrahi
Bazar, P.O. and P.S. Raghopur, District-Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through Secretary, N.H. Division Department,
Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, N.H. Division Department, Government of India, Ministry of
Road and Highways, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Road and Construction Department,
Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The Collector, Supaul, District- Supaul.
5. The Project Director, P.I.U. Araria, National Highway Authority of India
(N.H.A.I), Patna.
6. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Supaul, District-Supaul.
7. The Commissioner cum Arbitrator, Koshi Division, District Saharsa.
8. The Land Acquisition Officer, Supaul, District- Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mani Bhushan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Raisul Haque, SC 10
For the NHAI : Mr. Adr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, Advocate
Mr. Praty Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By preferring the present writ application petitioner
has questioned the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the
Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, Koshi Division, Saharsa
whereby he has dismissed the Arbitration Case of the petitioner
solely on the ground that a writ application has been filed in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9902 of 2026 dt.08-07-2026
2/9
High Court of Judicature at Patna under Oath No. 1743 as
reported by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Saharsa vide
letter no. 2216 dated 27.11.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has
filed Arbitration Case before the Commissioner, Koshi Division,
Saharsa for grant of interest on the compensation amount which
was paid to him after much delay. The Commissioner, Koshi
Division without deciding the interest merely consigned the
Arbitration Case on the report dated 27.11.2025 of the Land
Acquisition Officer, Supaul intimating that for similar relief a
writ application has already been filed in the High Court under
Oath No. 1743 without giving details of the case. Thus, merely
on the basis of aforesaid report by a cryptic order dated
24.04.2026, Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa disposed
off the Arbitration case without deciding the issue of interest so
raised by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and
N.H.A.I did not controvert this submission of the petitioner to
the extent that order of the Commissioner is cryptic and has
been passed merely on the basis of a report of District Land
Acquisition Officer, stating about the pendency of a writ
application, the details of which has not been provided therein,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9902 of 2026 dt.08-07-2026
3/9
goading the Commissioner to dispose off the case summarily.
5. Having heard the parties and perused the documents
brought on record from which it appears that the petitioner had
preferred arbitration (Misc.) Case No. 61 of 2025 before the
Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa in terms of Section
3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 praying therein for
grant of interest over the delayed payment of compensation,
which the Commissioner being arbitrator, has to decide in terms
of the provisions given in the Act.
6. The land of the petitioner has duly been acquired on
08.08.2006 and prior to that under Section 3A of the Act dated
19.10.2005 the notification to the effect of acquisition of the
aforesaid land of the petitioner, has duly been published. The
3.7 decimal of land of the petitioner appertaining to Thana No.
118, Circle Raghopur, Khata No. 83, Khesara No. 1025 Mauza
Simrahi has been acquired in August, 2006 for which
compensation had already been paid but that too after much
delay entitling the petitioner to claim interest thereon in terms of
the provisions as contained in Section 3G(5) of the National
Highways Act, 1956.
7. Thereafter, the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa
called for a report from the District Land Acquisition Officer,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9902 of 2026 dt.08-07-2026
4/9
Supaul who instead of submitting report simply intimated the
Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa vide his letter no. 2216 dated
27.11.2025 that for similar relief a writ application has been
preferred by the petitioner before the Hon’ble High Court. The
District Land Acquisition Officer simply mentioned one oath
number as Oath No. 1743 dated 25.09.20.
8. By preferring the present writ application petitioner
has questioned the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the
Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, Koshi Division, Saharsa
whereby he has dismissed the Arbitration Case of the petitioner
without deciding the issue so raised by him, solely on the
ground of pendency of writ application in the High Court of
Judicature at Patna under Oath No. 1743.
9. The Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa
without applying himselfs to the given sets of fact in order to
dispose the matter, hurriedly consigned the case and closed the
proceeding merely on that basis without verifying the factual
aspect of the same. In terms of the statutory provisions as
contained in the National Highways Act, 1956, the
Commissioner being the arbitrator has to decide the issue either
way.
10. The prayer of the petitioner is very limited; he has not
Patna High Court CWJC No.9902 of 2026 dt.08-07-2026
5/9
disputed the amount of compensation neither has he prayed for
more compensation for the said land which has duly been
acquired in year 2006. The petitioner being aggrieved by the
delayed payment of compensation, has prayed before the
Divisional Commissioner in the capacity of him being arbitrator,
to issue a direction to the concerned authority for payment of
interest on the delayed payment of compensation which, he is
legally entitled, to in terms of the extant statutory provisions.
11. At this stage, Mr. Maurya Vijay Chandra, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the N.H.A.I raises legal issue
with respect to the power of this Court to direct the Arbitrator,
Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa to reconsider the issues on
the merit by citing orders passed in the C.W.J.C. No. 15938 of
2023 dated 09.04.2024, C.W.J.C No. 1467 of 2024 order dated
02.05.2024 and a judgment as reported in 2005(8) SCC 618. By
referring to aforesaid judgment/orders Mr. Maurya Vijay
Chandra points out that the only course available to the
petitioner is to approach the competent court in terms of
provisions as contained in Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 or in the alternative to approach the
competent authority under Section 30 of the aforesaid Act for
settlement.
12. This argument so submitted on behalf of the learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.9902 of 2026 dt.08-07-2026
6/9
counsel appearing on behalf of the NHAI appears to fallacious,
misconceived and based on misinterpretation of the
orders/judgment referred to herein above. Two orders cited by
him vide C.W.J.C. No. 15938 of 2023 dated 09.04.2024,
C.W.J.C No. 1467 of 2024 evince that in both the aforesaid
cases the Arbitrator had passed the reasoned and speaking order
on the merit of the case and on the issue of limitation. Then it
has been held that the only course available to the petitioner is
to approach the competent Court under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court so cited above, is totally on different
issue whereas power of Hon’ble Chief Justices of High Courts
or the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Supreme Court with respect to
appointment of an Arbitrator, has been settled thus, in my
considered view all the aforesaid orders/judgment are not
applicable in the present case.
13. In the case at hand, the Divisional Commissioner,
Saharsa -cum- Arbitrator instead of passing any order on merit
deciding the claim of petitioner with respect to the issue of
interest raised therein, on account of delayed payment of
compensation, has not been decided neither has the Divisional
Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator passed any reasoned or speaking
Patna High Court CWJC No.9902 of 2026 dt.08-07-2026
7/9
order for not doing the same. What the Divisional
Commissioner, Saharsa-cum-Arbitrator has done, will be
evident from the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by him as
quoted herein below for proper appreciation of the matter :-
“ जजलाभू - अजरनपदाजधकारी , सुपौलकेपत्रांक -
जदनांक सेप्रजतवेदनप्रापतहै।
2216, -27.11. 2025
उनकेदाराप्रजतवेजदतजकयागयाहैजकआवेदकदारा
उकतवादकेसमानजवषय - वसतुकेबावतमाननीयउचच
नयायालय , पटना मे ओथ संखया -1743, जदनांक -
25.09.2025 केमाधयमसेजसजवलजरटयाजचकादायर
जकया गया है , जो माननीय उचच नयायालय मे
जवचाराधीनहै।उनकेदाराप्रसतुतवादकोखाजरजजकये
जानेकाअनुरोधजकयागयाहै।
अतःउपरोकतकेआलोकमेइसआजबरट्रेशन
वादकीकायरवाहीसमापतकीजातीहै।इसआदेशकी
प्रजतसभीसंबंजधतोदीजाय। "
14. Merely on the basis of a report dated 27.11.2025
submitted by the District Land Acquisition Officer, Supaul
furnishing information with respect to pendency of a writ
application in the High Court under Oath No. 1743 dated
25.09.2025 without disclosing any further details thereon as to
who are the parties, what relief has been prayed for and whether
any order has been passed thereon on the orders of non-payment
of interest, so claimed by the petitioner herein.
15. The aforesaid order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9902 of 2026 dt.08-07-2026
8/9
Divisional Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator does not not come in
the category of arbitral award as defined in Section 2(1)(c) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
th
16. Award as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (8
Edition) means a final judgment or decision specially one by an
Arbitrator. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 it
encompasses final awards, interim award and consent based
decisions. In other words an arbitral award is binding and
conclusive adjudication by an arbitral tribunal that resolves a
dispute in full or in part.
17. In the present case the order impugned passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa -cum- Arbitrator seriously
lacks quality of it being placed in the category of an award.
18. In this backdrop, this Court is left with no alternative
but to set aside the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the
Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa. The petitioner is accorded
liberty to file a fresh arbitration case before the Divisional
Commissioner, Saharsa in terms of Section 3G(5) of the
National Highways Act within a period of four weeks
henceforth and on the arbitration case so filed by the petitioner
within four weeks henceforth the Divisional Commissioner,
Koshi Division, Saharsa is under obligation to accept the same
Patna High Court CWJC No.9902 of 2026 dt.08-07-2026
9/9
and decide the issue within a maximum period of three months
from the receipt of the same because the claim of interest is for
the land acquired in the year 2006 as such expeditious disposal
of the same is the need of an hour.
19. It goes without saying that the Divisional
Commissioner, Saharsa shall pass a positive, speaking and
reasoned order but only after having heard all the parties
concerned in the matter.
20. This Court has not expressed its opinion on the merit
of the case. The Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa has all the
liberty to decide the arbitration case for payment of interest on
the basis of evidence and materials brought before him by all
the parties concerned.
21. Accordingly, writ application is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
Prakash/-
AFR/NAFR NA
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 21.07.2026
Transmission Date