08.09.2026 Item No.9 Ct. No. 19 RP W.P.A. 3764 of 2024 PRASANTA DAS & ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA & Ors. Mr. Jayanta Sengupta Ms. Shebatee Datta Ms. Poulami Roy ….. For the Petitioners Mr. Animesh Mukherjee Mr. Guddu Singh …..For UOI Mr. Samrat Mukherje Mr. Rachit Lakhmani Mr. Subharanil Roy …..For State Ms. Manika Roy Mr. Atanu Sur …..For NHAI 1. On perusal of the earlier order dated 14.07.2026 it reveals that the name of the learned advocate appearing for the Union of India has been wrongly typed as ‘Mr. Animesh Baidya’ instead of ‘Mr. Animesh Mukherjee’. 2. The aforementioned typographical error be rectified by the department forthwith in terms of this order. 3. Let this order be treated as a part of the order dated 14.07.2026. 4. The parties to the instant writ petition are represented by their respective learned counsel. 5. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners at the very outset draws attention of this Court to paragraph no.10 of the order dated 14.07.2026 which runs as under: “10. On the adjourned day, learned counsel for the respondent shall submit a report in writing supported by affidavit indicating who is the Arbitrator in connection with the award passed by CALA on account of acquisition of land of the present writ petitioners.” 6. On behalf of Union of India instruction dated 3.9.2024 is filed which is taken on record. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioners that since the writ petitioners are aggrieved with the quantum of the award as has been determined by CALA under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (“the said Act” in short) the writ petitioners intend to approach the Arbitrator as would be appointed by the Central Government for determination of appropriate compensation in terms of Section 3G(5) of the said Act. It is submitted that since the writ petitioners were not aware of the name of the Arbitrator the writ petitioners have become forumless. 8. At the time of hearing Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Union of India 2 draws attention of this Court to the copy of the order dated 4.7.2013 as issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways wherefrom it would reveal that the Commissioner, Burdwan Division in the Revenue District-Burdwan, State-West Bengal has been appointed as Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the said Act. 9. In view of such, this Court while disposing the instant writ petition grants liberty to the writ petitioners to approach the Commissioner, Burdwan Division in the Revenue District- Burdwan, West Bengal under Section 3G(5) of the said Act for determination of the compensation amount payable to them. It is made clear that in the event such an approach is made within forty-five working days from the date of passing of this order the said Arbitrator shall treat the said application within the period of limitation and thereafter shall proceed to determine the amount in terms of Section 3G(7) of the said Act and shall pass award within 180 working days from the date of initiation of the arbitration proceeding. 10.The time limit as fixed by this Court is peremptory and mandatory. 11.Before parting with, it is, however, required to be note that the National Highway Authority, 3 being not the requiring body in this case, the National Highway Authority is neither a necessary party nor a proper party either in the instant writ petition or in the proposed arbitration proceeding. 12. With the aforementioned observation, this writ petition is disposed of. (PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.) 4