1 2025:CGHC:48249 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4914 of 2025 Shri Kheduram S/o Dashru Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Bhesma, Tehsil Tilda, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Project Director National Highway Authority Of India, P.I.U. Raipur, Old Monfort School, N.H. 30 Jhanki, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Raipur Office Of The Collector, Raipur (C.G) 3 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/ Land Acquisition Officer (Cala) Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Mr. Shivam Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Soumitra kesharwani, PL. For the National Highway : Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19.09.2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with following reliefs: 2 “10.1. That Hon' ble court may kindly call for record for kind perusal of the Hon'ble court. 10.2. That Hon'ble court may kindly Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing Respondent No. 1 to forthwith release and deposit the compensation amount as determined in the arbitral award dated 27.12.2018 (Annexure P-1) in favour of the Petitioner within a stipulated time period. 10.3. That Hon'ble court may kindly Direct the Respondents No. 1 and 3 to have effect of the representation of the petitioner as submitted as on the final award of the Arbitrator and to refrain from initiating any further unnecessary or parallel proceedings to delay the matter. 10.4. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly Issue appropriate directions to Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner's land bearing Khasra No. 288/11, situated at Village Bhesma, Tehsil Abhanpur, Raipur, area 250 sq. mtrs. was acquired by the respondent-authority for the purpose of the National Highway Project under the land acquisition proceeding and award has been passed, however, petitioner being aggrieved of award dated 20/04/2012 has preferred an arbitration under Section 3G of the National Highway Act before the Arbitrator Court of Additional Collector. The petitioner raised the question in Arbitration Case No. 9/B-121 year 2016-17 that his land was acquired 250 Sq. mtr. but 3 compensation was calculated according to 930 sq. mtr. therefore, he could not get a proper compensation, to which, the Arbitrator accepted the ground of the petitioner and passed the arbitration order in the favour of the petitioner on 27/12/2018 (Annexure P-1). Against which, respondent no.1 preferred an appeal before the District Court Raipur and matter was registered as Arbitration case no.21/2019 but the respondent no.1 after filling the arbitration case never been taken it seriously, therefore, Court has rejected the application and close the proceeding of the case. Thereafter, respondent no.1 preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 4 of C.P.C read with Section 151 for restoration of the case, which was allowed by order dated 06/02/2020 and matter has been restored, however, once again the learned Court below close the proceeding on account of respondent no.1 has not followed the order passed by the Court and not showing their will to proceed in the case, thus, case has been finally closed on 31/10/2022. Respondent no.1 once again preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of PC along with application of Limitation Act on 26/04/2025 but the learned Court below have rejected both applications, thus, order of the Arbitrator/ Collector, Raipur Dated 27/12/2018 attend its finality. Learned Counsel further contended that petitioner has preferred a representation dated 13/05/2025 before respondent nos.1 & 3 to release the compensation, but both the authorities are keeping 4 silent on it. Hence, petitioner has came-up before this Court with aforesaid prayer. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that petitioner is having efficacious alternate remedy under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for enforcement of arbitral award passed by the Arbitrator. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Considering facts of the case, nature of reliefs, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the submission that petitioner is having alternate remedy under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, there is no good ground to entertain this writ petition at this stage. 6. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge, if so desire. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.