National Highway Authority of India vs Gurvinder Singh Arora

1

CGHC010226592026 2026:CGHC:38305
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
RUKHSAR
BANO
Date:
2026.09.02
11:31:46
+0530
RUKHSAR
BANO
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARBA No. 53 of 2026
1 - National Highway Authority Of India Throguh Its Project Director, Project
Implementation Unit, Raipur, H. No. 5196, Behind B.T.I. College Shankar Nagar,
Raipur (C.G.) Currently At Old Montfort School Campus, N.H. 30, Jhanki, Abhanpur,
District Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - Gurvinder Singh Arora S/o Avatar Singh R/o 17/389, Govind Nagar, Pandri,
Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) And Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)
District Raipur C.G.
... Respondents
( Cause title, as taken from CIS )
For Appellant
For Respondent No.2/State
:
:
Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate.
Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. Adv. General.

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi )
Order on Board
31/08/2026
1. Heard on admission.
2. The present arbitration appeal has been preferred by the
appellant under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation

2
Act, 1996 (henceforth referred to as the ‘ the Act, 1996 ’),
challenging the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned
Principal District Judge, Raipur in Arbitration Case No.12/2020,
whereby the application filed by the appellant-NHAI under Section
34 of the Act, 1996 has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in respect of
acquisition of the land belonging to respondent No.1, an award
was passed in favour of respondent No.1 by the Sub-Divisional
Officer (Revenue) / Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (for
short ‘CALA’) on 12.08.2008 in Land Acquisition Case No.29/A-
82, year 2007-08. The said order was challenged by respondent
No.1 by filing Arbitration Case No.25/ -121, year 2013-14 before
ब
the Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘ Act, 1956 ’), wherein the amount of
compensation awarded by the CALA was directed to be enhanced
after computation as per rules. Thereafter, the CALA enhanced
the amount of compensation in terms of the computation directed
by the Arbitrator vide order dated 09.02.2017. The said order
dated 09.02.2017 was challenged by the appellant - NHAI before
the District Judge, which challenge came to be rejected vide order
dated 07.04.2018. Thereafter, the CALA recomputed the amount
of compensation as per the directions of the Arbitrator and, vide
order dated 22.02.2017, directed the appellant -NHAI to pay the
differential amount to respondent No.1. The said order dated
22.02.2017 was again challenged by the appellant -NHAI before

3
the Arbitrator, which was rejected vide order dated 16.01.2020 on
the ground that the Arbitrator had already passed the order dated
09.02.2017 and, therefore, the said award could not be
challenged subsequently. Consequently, the order dated
16.01.2020 was challenged by the appellant before the Principal
District Judge, Raipur under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 by filing
Arbitration Case No.12/2020, which has been rejected by it vide
impugned order dated 11.03.2026. Learned counsel further
submits that, since the Arbitrator, vide order dated 09.02.2017,
had enhanced the amount of compensation and had also directed
to pay differential amount to respondent No.1/land oustee, the
subsequent order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the CALA was
very much challengeable before the Arbitrator and, thereafter,
before the Principal District Judge. Hence, he prays that the
present arbitration appeal may be admitted for hearing.
4. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2/State would
submit that, since the earlier order dated 09.02.2017 passed by
the Arbitrator had already been challenged by the appellant -NHAI
before the learned District Judge, under Section 34 of the Act,
1996, and the said challenge had been rejected vide order dated
07.04.2018, the same order could not subsequently be challenged
before the same authorities, i.e., the Arbitrator / Principal District
Judge. He further submits that the only remedy available to the
appellant – NHAI was to challenge the order dated 07.04.2018
before the High Court under Section 37 of the Act, 1996, which

4
was not availed by the NHAI. It is, therefore, submitted that the
impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality.
Hence, the present arbitration appeal may be rejected.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
6. As per the facts projected by the appellant - NHAI, the earlier
application filed by the NHAI under Section 34 of the Act, 1996
had already been rejected by the District Judge vide order dated
07.04.2018. Therefore, if the appellant -NHAI had any grievance
against the said order, it ought to have challenged the same by
filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996. However,
instead of availing the said remedy, the appellant - NHAI
challenged the subsequent modification order passed by the
CALA for recomputation of the compensation and payment of the
differential amount in pursuance of the directions issued by the
Arbitrator. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
appellant-NHAI could not have availed a second opportunity to
challenge the same determination before the Arbitrator under
Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956 and, thereafter, before the learned
Principal District Judge under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, as the
remedy in respect of the order dated 09.02.2017 passed by the
Arbitrator had already been availed by the appellant and the
challenge thereto had been rejected vide order dated 07.04.2018.

5
7. Accordingly, the subsequent order passed by the CALA merely in
compliance with the directions contained in the Arbitrator’s order
dated 09.02.2017 could not give rise to a fresh cause of action for
challenging the original determination before the Arbitrator and the
learned Principal District Judge.
8. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned
Principal District Judge, Raipur has not committed any error of law
in rejecting the application filed by the appellant -NHAI under
Section 34 of the Act, 1996.
9. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to admit the instant
appeal, hence the same is dismissed at the motion stage.
10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No
order as to cost(s).
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge
Rukhsar