1 CGHC010287252021 2026:CGHC:36394 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4555 of 2021 1 - Rajkumar Dhanwani (Dead) Through (His Legal Heir) Smt. Kalpana Dhanwani W/o Late Rajkumar Dhanwani, Aged About 59 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Rajendra Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Land Records, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Competent Authority, Land Acquisition-Cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Tahsildar, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Patwari, Village Sakri, Tehsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - National Highway Authority Of India, Through The Project Director, Nhai Project Execution Unit Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sunder Lal Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Advocate General For Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate 2 SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 14/08 /2026 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by setting-aside the impugned award dated 01.0872018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No. 2, so far as it relates to the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to passing of the impugned award dated 01.07.2018. 10.3 Any other relief/reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be allowed.” 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are that land acquisition proceedings was initiated for the purpose of widening of the National Highway Road, NH – 130 (Old NH – 111) from Bilaspur to Katghora. In that process, land situated at Village Sakri was also subjected to acquisition. Accordingly, the notification under Section 3A of the National Highway Act, 1956 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the Act, 1956) was published in the gazette and further, the information was also informed to the general people by way of publishing notification in two local newspapers, one in hindi and another in english dated 10.03.2018. Following due process of law under the Act, 1956, award was passed by the Competent Authority - Land Acquisition – cum - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur on 01.07.2018 (Annexure P/1). Land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No. 422/6, admeasuring 0.0076 hectares situated at Village Sakri, Tehsil – Takhatpur, District – Bilaspur was also subject matter of acquisition and accordingly, compensation was computed. Aggrieved with the computation of the compensation, this writ petition is filed. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the competent authority/Respondent No. 2 and computing the amount of compensation in the impugned award with respect to the petitioner is illegal because there is no material available in the record of Respondent No. 2 to demonstrate that the petitioner has purchased the agricultural land to obtain the benefit of compensation granted under the Act, 1956. Respondent No. 2 erred in holding that the petitioner is entitled for compensation on per hectare basis whereas, the guidelines issued by the State Government and the statutory act specifically provides that in case of agricultural land/admeasuring less than 506 sq. meters, the compensation has to be granted on the basis of per sq. meter. 4. Respondent No. 2 has not issued any notice to the petitioner before passing of an award and thereby, not giving opportunity to put-forth his case and thereby, miserably failed to discharge his official duties. Respondent No. 2 had adopted double standards in computing the amount of compensation of other lands situated within the same vicinity. The Respondent No. 2 failed to determine compensation in accordance with the provision under Section 3G (7) of the Act, 1956. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable as petitioner is having alternate efficacious remedy under the law. He contended that petitioner is having the remedy under Section 3G (5) of the Act, 1956 as it provides the mechanism, for the person aggrieved against the amount determined by the competent authority. Under Section 3G (5) of the Act, 1956, he/she can approach to the Arbitrator to settle the dispute of quantum of compensation. He also submits that in similar issue raised by the petitioners in WP (C) No. 657/2022, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court have disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioners therein to avail the remedy available under Section 3G (5) of the Act, 1956. 4 6. The order passed in WP (C) No. 657/2022 is put to challenge by the petitioners therein before the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal bearing WA No. 140/2022 and other connected matters. The writ appeals came up for hearing before the Division Bench on 10.11.2024 along with other connected matters and the writ appeals were dismissed affirming the order passed in the writ petition dated 04.02.2022. This case is also covered with the decision in WA No. 140/2022. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner do not dispute the submission of the counsel for the Respondent No. 5 with regard to the availability of the other alternate remedy. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on records. 9. The writ petition bearing WP (C) No. 657/2022 was disposed of observing thus:- “3. Be that as it may, if we look into the provisions of the Act, 1956, Section 3G provides for the determination of amount payable as compensation. Sub-section(5) of Section 3G also provides the mechanism in case if any person is aggrieved by the amount determined by the competent authority and the recourse available is to approach the Arbitrator. The respondents in the instant case have already notified the Arbitrator to settle the dispute so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned. 4. For ready reference, Section 3 G (5) of the Act of 1956 is reproduced hereinunder: “3G(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.” 5. In the recent past also this court in a couple of writ petitions i.e. WPC No.5309 of 2021 and WPC No. 5207 of 2021 and other similar matters have decided the issue directing the parties to avail the remedy provided under Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956. 6. Based upon those decisions that this court has taken, the present writ petition also stands disposed of on identical terms. Since the Central Government 5 has already notified the authority to discharge the functions of the Arbitrator, the proper recourse available to the petitioners would to avail the said remedy under Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956. 7. Subject to the petitioners approaching the Arbitrator appointed by the Government within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Arbitrator notified shall proceed further with the matter and decide the same objectively after due consideration of the claim of the petitioners and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order. In the event if the petitioners raise their claim within a period of 30 days time as provided, the Arbitrator is expected to conclude the proceedings within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of claim of the petitioners.” 10.The order dated 04.02.2022 passed in the aforementioned writ petition was put to challenge in Writ Appeal No. 140/2022 which was dismissed along with other connected matters observing thus:- “Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the impugned orders and other documents and findings recorded by learned Single Judge while disposing of the matters, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. Even otherwise, learned Single Judge has observed that subject to the petitioners approaching the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Govt. in this regard within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Arbitrator notified shall proceed and decide the matter objectively after due consideration of the claim of petitioners and the grounds raised by them seeking for quashment of the award to the extent of the compensation quantified and the multiplier factor taken into consideration for computation of compensation. As such, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants i.e. Ashutosh Agrawal (supra) is distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 12. Accordingly, the writ appeals being devoid of merit are liable to be to be and are hereby dismissed. No cost(s).” 11.The issue considered and decided in Writ Appeal is similar to that of the case in hand and therefore, this writ petition is also disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach the Arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of the Act, 1956 and in the event petitioner submits application/claim within the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy, the Arbitrator notified 6 shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law by speaking and reasoned order. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY