### Direction to Expeditiously Decide Pending Arbitration for Land Compensation under National Highways Act Section 3G(5)

The Petitioner, a private limited company, is the registered owner of land in Village Kolar, Raipur.

Following a demarcation report dated 26.12.2022 and a Patwari Panchnama, it was noted that approximately 0.024 hectares of the Petitioner’s land (from Khasra Nos. 54/4, 54/5, and 54/6) were utilized for the "Bharatmala Project" construction of a National Highway.

The Petitioner alleged that despite the land use, no compensation was awarded.

Consequently, the Petitioner filed an arbitration application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, before the Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, Raipur, which remained pending.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions for demarcation, compensation at market value, and the expeditious disposal of the pending arbitration.

Whether the court should direct the Competent Authority to decide the pending arbitration application regarding land acquisition compensation within a specific timeframe?

The court primarily applied Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which provides for the determination of compensation by an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either party.

Reference was also made to Section 3H(4) of the same Act, which mandates that disputes regarding the apportionment of compensation or entitlement to receive it shall be referred to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s primary grievance was the lack of compensation for land allegedly used in the National Highway project despite a demarcation report confirming the impact on the land.

Respondent No. 4 (NHAI) argued that while land under Khasra No. 54/1 was acquired, the specific entitlement of the Petitioner among twelve named persons could be a matter for the Principal Civil Court under Section 3H(4).

However, the NHAI and the State expressed no objection to a direction for the expeditious disposal of the pending arbitration.

The Court, without delving into the merits of the property rights or the quantum of compensation, identified that the statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) had already been invoked by the Petitioner and was languishing without a decision.

No specific orders were passed regarding the immediate restoration of land or specific market value compensation, as those remain subject to the pending arbitration.