1 2026:CGHC:22496 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2976 of 2021 1 - M/s Geekay Developers (G. K. Developers) Through Partner Suresh Atlani Son Of Late Shri Golaram Atlani, Aged About 62 Years,8, Ground Floor, Ashoka Millennium, Ring Raod No. 1, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Raod, Transport And Highways, New Delhi, District New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi 3 - The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit Raipur, Chhattisgarh, National Highways Authority Of India, House No. HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.05.14 11:45:36 +0530 2 5196, Behind Bti College, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Competent Authority ( Land Acquisition) And Sub Divisional Officer (R), Raipur, Chhattisgarh Office Of Competent Authority And Sub Divisional Officer (R), Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Maulik Bhansali on behalf of Mr. Vivek Chopda, Advocates For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board 13.05.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that against the supplementary award passed by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act, the petitioner has been subjected to proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 being Arbitration Case No. 11 of 2023 (NHAI v. Geekay Developers) which is pending consideration before the Court of learned 6th Additional District and Sessions 3 Judge, Raipur, therefore, necessary direction may be issued to conclude the said proceedings and decide it expeditiously. 2. The prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Be that as it may, the concerned court is directed to conclude the proceedings of the aforesaid matter under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and conclude it expeditiously without any further delay. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed opinion on the merits of the matter. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) JUDGE Sd/- Harneet