Section 3G(5) arbitration must remain confined to the acquisition award challenged in the application.

The competent authority awarded compensation for 27 sq. m. of land in Survey No. 2000/5 (Plot No. 144) on 12 July 2011.

The landholder applied under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, challenging that determination; the matter was registered as Arbitration Case No. 37 of 2013.

A further 246 sq. m. of the same land was acquired under notifications issued in 2012 and 2013, and a separate award was made on 20 January 2014.

On 15 June 2022, the District Collector, acting as arbitrator, included that additional area in the award made in the 2011-award proceeding.

NHAI appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, contending that the arbitrator had exceeded the scope of the application.

Whether the arbitrator could include the additional 246 sq. m. acquired under the 2012–13 notifications when deciding the landholder’s application challenging the 2011 award for 27 sq. m.

Whether the 2014 award concerning the additional 246 sq. m. had to be addressed through a separate application under Section 3G(5), if one had been filed.

Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 permits an aggrieved party to seek arbitration concerning compensation determined by the competent authority under Section 3G(1) or (2). The arbitrator’s determination must therefore remain within the subject matter of the application and the award challenged; compensation for a separate acquisition award is to be considered in a separate proceeding founded on an application under Section 3G(5).

The appeal was considered under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the context of the challenge to the decision under Section 34.

The 2011 award concerned 27 sq. m., while the additional 246 sq. m. was acquired later under separate notifications and determined by a separate award in 2014.

The arbitrator was therefore confined, in the proceeding challenging the 2011 award, to the 27 sq. m. covered by that award; including the additional land was a patent illegality.

Because the parties disputed whether a separate Section 3G(5) application had been filed concerning the 2014 award, the Court did not decide that factual question.

It directed the District Collector to check the record and, if such an application was pending, decide it independently.

It directed the District Collector to determine the application in Arbitration Case No. 37 of 2013 only in relation to the 27 sq. m. covered by the 2011 award, and to verify whether a separate application concerning the 246 sq. m. was pending and decide it separately if so.

The proceedings were to be decided after notice and opportunity to the parties, preferably within three months of receipt of the order.