1 2026:CGHC:22402-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBA No. 16 of 2025 1 - Jamal Khan S/o Rasool Khan Aged About 80 Years, (Dead/ Deleted) Through Lrs 1.a - Falj Khan S/o Jaman Khan Aged About 48 Years 1.b - Gulam Khan S/o Jaman Khan Aged About 20 Years 2 - Mohd. Khaleel Khan S/o Rasool Khan Aged About 65 Years 3 - Mohd. Habib Khan, S/o Rasool Khan, (Dead/deleted) Through Lr's 3.a - Arman Khan S/o Mohd. Habib Khan 4 - Mohd Mustkeem Khan S/o Rasool Khan Aged About 58 Years 5 - Tajammul Khan S/o Rasool Khan Aged About 52 Years 6 - Fayoom (Wrongly Mentioned Kayoom In Impugned Order) Khan S/o Rasool Khan Aged About 48 Years 7 - Mohd. Mumtaz Khan D/o Rasool Khan Aged About 40 Years All are R/o Village Gatauri (Main Road), Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Appellants versus 1 - Ajay Kumar S/o Rajkumar Markam Aged About 32 Years R/o Shanti Nagar Silli, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) 2 - Project Director National Highway Authority Of India, Implementation Unit (P.I.U.) Bilaspur Hig 01, Abhilash Parisar Behind Hightech Bus Stand, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Competent Authority Land Acquisition Officer And Sub Divisional Officer (Rev.) (The Then Shri Devendra Patel)tahsil Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 For Appellants : Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Nelson Panna, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate For State/Respondent No.3 : Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Dy.Govt. Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Judge Order On Board Per Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 12.05.2026 1. This arbitration appeal is filed against the judgment/order dated 14.01.2025, passed in MJC Case No. 304 of 2021, passed by 2nd District Judge (Commercial Court), District Judge Level District Bilaspur (C.G.) arising out of the order dated 22.12.2020, passed by the Court of Arbitrator/Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) in case No.01/A-82/2019-2020. 2. Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2/NHAI submits that apart from the merits of the case, the order impugned is not sustainable on the ground of jurisdiction of Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. He contended that proceedings before the Commercial Court is arising out of the dispute of disbursement of the compensation against the acquisition of land under National Highways Act, 1956 (In short ‘the Act of 1956’). He contended that dispute is not of commercial dispute, therefore, Commercial Court is not having jurisdiction to consider the case as filed by appellant/herein because the appellant dissatisfied with the disbursement of awarded amount in favour of respondent 3 No.1 has filed an application U/s. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (In short ‘the Act of 1996’). In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Anand Khedia & Ors. Vs. Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator, Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur, in Arbitration Appeal No. 26 of 2025, decided on 22.04.2026. 3. Learned counsel for appellants do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2 with regard to the fact that dispute, subject matter of appeal is arising from the land acquisition proceedings. He further submits that appellants have earlier filed writ petition bearing WPC No. 3465 of 2018, wherein, the writ petition was disposed of permitting petitioners to submit dispute before the Arbitrator and accordingly, application was filed before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, which is notified as Arbitrator for Bilaspur Division. Against the award of Arbitrator, application U/s. 34 of the Act of 1996 was filed before Principal District Judge, which was transferred to Commercial Court. 4. We have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the records of this appeal. 5. Perusal of record of MJC No.304 of 2021 would show that on 22.01.2021, Principal District Judge, Bilaspur had registered the case filed by appellants therein under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 challenging the order of Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in case No.01/A-82/2019-2020, dated 22.12.2020. During the course of proceedings, Principal District Judge, Bilaspur in its order-sheet dated 19.01.2024 considering the letter/circular dated 4 21.12.2023, has transferred the case to the Commercial Court (District Judge Level) Bilaspur and accordingly the proceedings was concluded and impugned order is passed. 6. Similar facts came up for consideration before the Coordinate Bench of this Court in which one of us (Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) was member, in case of Anand Khedia (supra), wherein it observed thus :- “6. The short question involved for consideration in this appeal is, “whether the award passed by the Statutory Arbitrator under Section 3G(7) of the Act of 1956 can be questioned through an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 ? If yes, which would be the competent Court to hear and decide the said application ?” 7. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would firstly be appropriate to notice the provisions contained under the National Highways Act, 1956. The Act of 1956, being a complete code in itself, provides for a grievance redressal mechanism. Sections 3G (5), (6) and (7) of the Act of 1956 directly relates to calculation of compensation related grievances and state as under :- “3G. Determination of amount payable as compensation. – (1) to (4) XXX XXX (5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. (7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub- section (5) as the case may be, shall take into consideration - 5 (a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3A; (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land; (c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings; (d) if any, consequences of acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change.” 8. As per Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. In the instant case, the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division has been appointed to be Statutory Arbitrator for resolving the dispute under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956. Sub- section (6) of Section 3G clearly mentions that subject to the provisions of the Act of 1956, the provisions of the Act of 1996 shall apply to every arbitration under the Act of 1956. Meaning thereby, that the order passed by the Statutory Arbitrator can be made subject matter of proceeding under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. There is nothing in the scheme of Section 3G of the Act of 1956 to exclude the application of Section 34 of the Act of 1956 vis- a-vis the award of the Statutory Arbitrator passed under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956. As such, it is apparently vividly clear that the award by the Statutory Arbitrator can be questioned before the Court of competent jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, like any other award by an Arbitrator. The first point is answered accordingly. 9. Coming to the second point, the order dated 13/09/2021 (Annexure A/9) passed by the Statutory Arbitrator, Commissioner, Bilaspur Division under Section 3G(7) of the Act of 1956 was challenged by way of application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the District Judge, Bilaspur, however, by order dated 6 07/02/2024, in light of the notification dated 20/12/2023 issued by the State Government through the Law and Legislative Affairs Department, the District Judge transferred the matter to the 2nd Additional District Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Level) for hearing and disposal in accordance with law holding that the matter at hand is a commercial dispute and therefore, Commercial Court would be competent to resolve the said dispute. 10. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as well as the provisions contained thereunder. The Act of 2015 is an act to provide for the constitution of Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division in the High Courts for adjudicating commercial disputes of specified value and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015 defines commercial dispute, which states as under :- “2. Definitions. – (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) XXX (b) XXX (c) “commercial dispute” means a dispute arising out of - (i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents; (ii) export or import of merchandise or services; (iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law; (iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipment and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the same; (v) carriage of goods; (vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders; (vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce; (viii) franchising agreements; 7 (ix) distribution and licensing agreements; (x) management and consultancy agreements; (xi) joint venture agreements; (xii) shareholders agreements; (xiii) subscription and investment agreements pertaining to the services industry including outsourcing services and financial services; (xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural resources including electromagnetic spectrum; (xx) insurance and re-insurance; (xxi) contracts of agency relating to any of the above; and (xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be notified by the Central Government.” 11. Further, Section 3 of the Act of 2015 provides for constitution of Commercial Courts. Section 6 of the Act of 2015 speaks about the jurisdiction of Commercial Court and states that the Commercial Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value arising out of the entire territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction. 12. A matter will fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court or the Commercial Division of the High Court on the following two factors :- (i) it shall be a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015; and (ii) such commercial disputes are of a specified value as per Section 2(i) of the Act of 2015. 13. Thus, from the scheme of the Act of 2015, it is apparent that only a commercial dispute can be tried by a commercial Court. For a dispute to qualify as commercial dispute, it must fall within one of the clauses of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015. A dispute will not become a commercial dispute merely because it is an arbitration matter and and jurisdiction in respect with an arbitration matter has been dealt with separately under Sections 10 and 15(2) of the Act of 2015. Every application filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 cannot be transferred to the Commercial Court under Section 15(2) of the Act of 2015 and only such applications will be required to be transferred, which are relating to a commercial dispute of 8 a specified value covered under Section 2(1)(c) read with Section 2(i) of the Act of 2015. 14. Admittedly, the dispute involved in this matter is not covered by Section 2(1)(c) clauses (i) to (xxii) of the Act of 2015. Clause (xxii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015 enables the Central Government to include any other dispute in the definition of ‘commercial dispute’ by notification. In the instant case, this Court passed the following order on 21/04/2026 :- “Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General is requested to obtain instructions from the Central Government as to whether any notification under Section 2(1)(c)(xxii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been issued. He is further requested to seek instructions on whether disputes arising out of land acquisition for the purpose of construction of highways have been notified as commercial disputes by the Central Government.” 15. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, has produced the e-mail in which the Central Government has sent him the following information :- “1. No notification under Section 2(1)(c)(xxii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been issued by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways. 2. Further, disputes arising out of land acquisition for the purpose of construction of National Highways have not been notified as commercial disputes by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways.” 16. In view of the aforesaid information provided by the Central Government through learned Deputy Solicitor General of India which has been brought on record, we have no hesitation in holding that the dispute raised by the appellants firstly before the Statutory Arbitrator and then before the District Judge under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is not a ‘commercial dispute’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) read with Section 2(i) of the Act of 2015 as a dispute arising out of land acquisition for the purpose of construction of National Highways under the provisions of the Act of 1956 has not been notified by the Central Government as commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015 and therefore, learned District Judge erred in transferring the application filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 to the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Level). 9 17. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited v. KS Infraspace LLP Limited and Anr. (2020) 15 SCC 585, has clearly held that a matter will be under the jurisdiction of Commercial Court only if it is a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015 and such commercial disputes are of specified value as per Section 2(i) of the Act of 2015. 18. The High Court of Uttaranchal, in the matter of Richa Bisht and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2020 SCC Online Utt 1386, as well as the High Court of Allahabad, in the matter of Tulsarani and Another. v. Union of India and Others, 2022 SCC Online All 693, have taken a similar view which we have taken above and as such, we are in agreement with the view so taken by the High Courts of Uttaranchal and Allahabad, as the appellants’ land has compulsorily been acquired under the provisions of the Act of 1956 for the purpose of construction of National Highway, therefore, the dispute arising out of land acquisition for such purpose cannot be treated as ‘commercial dispute’ under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015. 19. It is made clear that though notification dated 20/12/2023 issued by the State Government through the Law and Legislative Affairs Department includes arbitration cases but by virtue of Section 10 of the Act of 2015, where the subject-matter of an arbitration is a commercial dispute of a specified value and nature as prescribed therein, only then the said arbitration case would come within the jurisdiction of Commercial Court. It is clarified accordingly. 20. In view of the aforesaid legal discussion and analysis, the final impugned order dated 21/10/2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Bilaspur rejecting the application filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 as well as the order dated 07/02/2024 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur refusing to entertain the application filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and transferring the matter to the Commercial Court (District Judge Level) in light of the notification dated 20/12/2023 issued by the State Government through the Law and Legislative Affairs Department, both are hereby set aside. Matter is remitted to the Court of Principal District Judge, Bilaspur for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 21. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No cost(s).” 10 7. In the above referred case also award passed by Competent Authority under Land Acquisition was put to challenge before the Arbitrator, who passed an award on 13.09.2021 denying to interfere with the award. The award of Arbitrator was put to challenge before the District Judge U/s. 34 of the Act of 1996 and it was subsequently transferred to the Commercial Court considering the notification dated 20.12.2023 of the State Government. 8. In this appeal specific ground of challenging the jurisdiction of Commercial Court has not been pleaded, however, when submission is made by learned counsel for respondent No.2, learned counsel for appellants submits that appellants may be permitted to raise this ground also and his argument to the extent that the Commercial Court who is not having jurisdiction to consider the application filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, before the District Judge against award of Arbitrator arising out of proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act. He also contended that as the proceedings filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is not arising out of the commercial dispute between the parties, therefore, Principal District Judge erred in transferring the case to the Commercial Court. 9. As the submission made by learned counsel for parties that in the facts of the case Commercial Court is not having jurisdiction to deal with the application filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, we accept the submission made by learned counsel for appellants of a grounds raised orally as mentioned above for disposal of this case. 10. As the facts of the above referred case are identical to the facts of the case at hand, we are of the view that the case is covered with the 11 decision in case of Anand Khedia (supra), therefore, the impugned judgment/ order dated 14.01.2025, passed in MJC Case No. 304 of 2021, passed by 2nd District Judge (Commercial Court), District Judge Level District Bilaspur (C.G.) as well as the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the District Judge Bilaspur transferring the case to the Commercial Court, in light of the notification dated 21.12.2023, are set-aside. Matter is remitted to the Court of Principal District Judge Bilaspur for hearing and disposal of the case in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court is not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for appellants would submit that as by way of interim protection, earlier in the writ petition bearing WPC No.3465 of 2018, writ Court has restrained the authorities from disbursement of the amount of compensation till the Arbitrator decides the dispute and in this proceeding also, interim order is passed on 27.02.2025 of staying the impugned order and further directing that the amount of compensation determined to the tune of Rs.43,30,311/- in respect of the land bearing Kh. No.685 admeasuring 0.26 acres shall not be disbursed to respondent No.1, interim protection as granted to appellants in the facts of the case may be directed to be continued till the District Judge decides the case. 12. Grant of interim order earlier on the disbursement of the amount of compensation is not disputed by the parties. In the facts of the case we find it appropriate to direct that the amount of compensation, subject matter of the case, shall not be disbursed to any of the parties, 12 till decision of the case by the District Judge on an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. 13. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Balram