Statutory arbitration for land acquisition under National Highways Act is not a "commercial dispute" under the Commercial Courts Act.

The Appellants’ land was compulsorily acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956

Dissatisfied with the compensation award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 01/06/2018, the Appellants sought enhancement through a Statutory Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the 1956 Act

The Arbitrator dismissed the claim on 13/09/2021

The Appellants then filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the District Judge, Bilaspur

However, on 07/02/2024, the District Judge transferred the matter to the 2nd Additional District Judge (Commercial Court) based on a state government notification regarding dispute values

The Commercial Court subsequently rejected the Section 34 application on merits on 21/10/2025

The court applied Section 3G(6) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which stipulates that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, applies to every arbitration under the 1956 Act

Regarding jurisdiction, the court looked to Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which exhaustively defines "commercial dispute," and Section 2(1)(c)(xxii), which permits the Central Government to notify additional disputes as commercial

Supreme Court precedent Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited v. KS Infraspace LLP Limited, which held that a dispute must strictly fall within the statutory definition to qualify as "commercial"

The court reasoned that while Section 3G(6) of the 1956 Act clearly allows for Section 34 challenges against statutory awards, such proceedings do not automatically qualify as commercial disputes

The court observed that land acquisition for highways is not listed under clauses (i) to (xxi) of Section 2(1)(c) of the 2015 Act

Upon seeking instructions from the Central Government, it was confirmed that no notification had been issued under Section 2(1)(c)(xxii) to categorize highway land acquisition disputes as "commercial"

Consequently, the specified value of the claim is irrelevant if the nature of the dispute itself does not meet the "commercial" criteria

The court aligned with similar rulings from the Uttarakhand and Allahabad High Courts, concluding that the District Judge lacked the authority to transfer the case to a Commercial Court

The High Court set aside the Commercial Court’s order dated 21/10/2025 and the District Judge’s transfer order dated 07/02/2024. The matter was remitted to the Principal District Judge, Bilaspur, for fresh adjudication in accordance with law