Korba Landowner May Take Higher-Compensation Claim Based On Nearby-Village Rates To NH Act Arbitrator: Chhattisgarh HC

The petitioner’s land at Village Devlapath, Korba, was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956, and compensation was determined by an award dated 05.08.2022.

He challenged the award, contending that the market value of similar land in nearby Village Pharaswani—allegedly higher than the value adopted for Devlapath—should have been considered under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

He also raised a grievance concerning interest.

The respondents submitted that a statutory remedy was available under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act and that interest had been included in the award.

Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides that, where either party does not accept the compensation determined by the competent authority, the amount may be determined by an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government.

In Puriram Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh, WA No. 423 of 2020, the Division Bench upheld relegating compensation-quantum disputes to that statutory arbitration mechanism.

Section 26 of the 2013 Act was invoked by the petitioner as governing the assessment of market value, including consideration of the average sale price for similar land in the nearest village or vicinity; the Court left its application and the valuation merits for the arbitrator to consider.

The award recorded interest under Section 30(3) of the 2013 Act.

The Court treated the petitioner’s principal complaint—that the market value had been assessed too low and that the higher rate from Pharaswani should be considered—as a dispute about the amount of compensation.

Section 3G(5), as applied in Puriram Kashyap, provided a specific alternative remedy for that dispute, so the Court declined to decide the valuation issue under Article 226.

It did not determine whether Section 26 required adoption of the Pharaswani rate.

As to interest, the award’s calculation chart recorded ₹68,550, but the Court made its conclusion subject to verification of the calculation and actual payment; any dispute about adequacy or correctness could be raised before the appropriate forum.

The arbitrator must consider the claim independently, in accordance with law and after hearing the concerned parties.

The Court expressed no view on entitlement to enhanced compensation or on whether the Pharaswani rate should apply; all contentions were left open.

The interest grievance was treated as not surviving in its asserted form, subject to verification of the calculation and payment.