A compliance order cannot create a fresh cause to re-challenge the original arbitral determination.

The land belonging to Respondent No. 1 was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India (“NHAI”). The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition/Sub-Divisional Officer passed an award on 12 August 2008 in Land Acquisition Case No. 29/A-82 of 2007-08.

Respondent No. 1 challenged the compensation before the statutory Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. By order dated 9 February 2017, the Arbitrator directed enhancement and recomputation of compensation. The CALA thereafter passed consequential orders, including an order dated 22 February 2017 directing payment of the differential compensation to Respondent No. 1.

NHAI had already challenged the Arbitrator’s order dated 9 February 2017 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; that challenge was rejected by the Principal District Judge on 7 April 2018. NHAI did not challenge the said order under Section 37 of the 1996 Act.

It subsequently challenged the CALA’s consequential order dated 22 February 2017 before the Arbitrator, but the challenge was rejected on 16 January 2020. NHAI then filed a Section 34 application against the latter order, which was rejected by the Principal District Judge, Raipur, on 11 March 2026 in Arbitration Case No. 12/2020.

NHAI preferred the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides the statutory mechanism for arbitration concerning determination of compensation for acquired land.

Under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitral award may be challenged before the competent court under Section 34, and the order deciding that challenge may be appealed under Section 37.

The court applied the principle that a party cannot obtain a second opportunity to challenge the same arbitral determination by attacking a subsequent administrative or consequential order implementing that determination.

A compliance or recomputation order, which merely gives effect to an earlier arbitral award, does not create a fresh cause of action to reopen the original determination.

The Arbitrator’s order dated 9 February 2017 had already determined the basis and enhancement of compensation, and NHAI had challenged that determination under Section 34.

After dismissal of that challenge on 7 April 2018, NHAI’s remedy, if aggrieved, was to pursue an appeal under Section 37; it could not circumvent the unchallenged order by separately attacking the CALA’s later order implementing the Arbitrator’s directions.

The CALA’s order dated 22 February 2017 was only consequential and directed recomputation and payment of the differential amount in accordance with the Arbitrator’s earlier determination.

It did not constitute an independent arbitral determination or create a new cause of action capable of reviving the challenge to the original award.

Consequently, the subsequent challenge before the Arbitrator and the ensuing Section 34 proceedings were impermissible attempts to secure a second opportunity to contest the same compensation determination.

The Principal District Judge committed no error of law in rejecting NHAI’s Section 34 application.

The appeal under Section 37(1)(c) was therefore not admitted and dismissed at the motion stage.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of, with no order as to costs.