1 CGHC010226592026 2026:CGHC:38305 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBA No. 53 of 2026 1 - National Highway Authority Of India Throguh Its Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Raipur, H. No. 5196, Behind B.T.I. College Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Currently At Old Montfort School Campus, N.H. 30, Jhanki, Abhanpur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Gurvinder Singh Arora S/o Avatar Singh R/o 17/389, Govind Nagar, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) And Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) District Raipur C.G. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Appellant For Respondent No.2/State : : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate. Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Dy. Adv. General. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 31/08/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. The present arbitration appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2026.09.02 11:31:46 +0530 2 Act, 1996 (henceforth referred to as the ‘the Act, 1996’), challenging the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Raipur in Arbitration Case No.12/2020, whereby the application filed by the appellant-NHAI under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in respect of acquisition of the land belonging to respondent No.1, an award was passed in favour of respondent No.1 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) / Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (for short ‘CALA’) on 12.08.2008 in Land Acquisition Case No.29/A- 82, year 2007-08. The said order was challenged by respondent No.1 by filing Arbitration Case No.25/ब-121, year 2013-14 before the Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1956’), wherein the amount of compensation awarded by the CALA was directed to be enhanced after computation as per rules. Thereafter, the CALA enhanced the amount of compensation in terms of the computation directed by the Arbitrator vide order dated 09.02.2017. The said order dated 09.02.2017 was challenged by the appellant - NHAI before the District Judge, which challenge came to be rejected vide order dated 07.04.2018. Thereafter, the CALA recomputed the amount of compensation as per the directions of the Arbitrator and, vide order dated 22.02.2017, directed the appellant -NHAI to pay the differential amount to respondent No.1. The said order dated 22.02.2017 was again challenged by the appellant -NHAI before 3 the Arbitrator, which was rejected vide order dated 16.01.2020 on the ground that the Arbitrator had already passed the order dated 09.02.2017 and, therefore, the said award could not be challenged subsequently. Consequently, the order dated 16.01.2020 was challenged by the appellant before the Principal District Judge, Raipur under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 by filing Arbitration Case No.12/2020, which has been rejected by it vide impugned order dated 11.03.2026. Learned counsel further submits that, since the Arbitrator, vide order dated 09.02.2017, had enhanced the amount of compensation and had also directed to pay differential amount to respondent No.1/land oustee, the subsequent order dated 22.02.2017 passed by the CALA was very much challengeable before the Arbitrator and, thereafter, before the Principal District Judge. Hence, he prays that the present arbitration appeal may be admitted for hearing. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/State would submit that, since the earlier order dated 09.02.2017 passed by the Arbitrator had already been challenged by the appellant -NHAI before the learned District Judge, under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, and the said challenge had been rejected vide order dated 07.04.2018, the same order could not subsequently be challenged before the same authorities, i.e., the Arbitrator / Principal District Judge. He further submits that the only remedy available to the appellant – NHAI was to challenge the order dated 07.04.2018 before the High Court under Section 37 of the Act, 1996, which 4 was not availed by the NHAI. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. Hence, the present arbitration appeal may be rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. As per the facts projected by the appellant - NHAI, the earlier application filed by the NHAI under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 had already been rejected by the District Judge vide order dated 07.04.2018. Therefore, if the appellant -NHAI had any grievance against the said order, it ought to have challenged the same by filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996. However, instead of availing the said remedy, the appellant - NHAI challenged the subsequent modification order passed by the CALA for recomputation of the compensation and payment of the differential amount in pursuance of the directions issued by the Arbitrator. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant-NHAI could not have availed a second opportunity to challenge the same determination before the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956 and, thereafter, before the learned Principal District Judge under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, as the remedy in respect of the order dated 09.02.2017 passed by the Arbitrator had already been availed by the appellant and the challenge thereto had been rejected vide order dated 07.04.2018. 5 7. Accordingly, the subsequent order passed by the CALA merely in compliance with the directions contained in the Arbitrator’s order dated 09.02.2017 could not give rise to a fresh cause of action for challenging the original determination before the Arbitrator and the learned Principal District Judge. 8. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Principal District Judge, Raipur has not committed any error of law in rejecting the application filed by the appellant -NHAI under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. 9. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to admit the instant appeal, hence the same is dismissed at the motion stage. 10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar