Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010114092025 2026:GAU-AS:7924 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2869/2025 SHRI AJIT CHANDRA DUTTA SON OF LATE HAHIRAM DUTTA, RESIDENT OF GOR ALI, RAJABARI, P.O. JORHAT, DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN-785014 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF ROAD, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, TRANSPORT BHAWAN, NO.1 PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI. PIN110001 2:NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED (NHIDCL REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT WORLD TRADE CENTRE NAUROJI NAGAR DELHI. PIN-110029 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER (PROJECT) NHIDCL PMU- JORHAT OPPOSITE BRAHMAPUTRA ACADEMY FIRST FLOOR RAJATIA GAON MALOW ALI JORHAT ASSAM. PIN-785001. 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CUM COLLECTOR JORHAT OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/4 JORHAT DISTRICT-JORHAT ASSAM. PIN-785001 5:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (LA) JORHAT OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER JORHAT DISTRICT- JORHAT PIN-785001 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER JORHAT WEST REVENUE CIRCLE MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD BABUPATTY JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785001 7:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER APDCL JORHAT BIDYUT BHAWAN NA ALI JORHAT ASSAM. PIN-785001. 8:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD BUILDING DIVISION JORHAT ATILAGAON JORHAT ASSAM PIN-78500 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M NATH, MAUSAM NATH,MS. D L DEKA,MR. A BHATTACHARJEE,MR. D J KAPIL Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, PWD,SC, APDCL,GA, ASSAM,SC, NHIDC Page No.# 3/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 08.06.2026 Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. J. Kapil, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Barman, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent; Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the PWD; Ms. R. Borah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well as Mr. B. Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APDCL. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although compensation towards acquisition of the land has already been paid by the National Highways Authority, compensation in respect of the structures standing thereon and the zirat land has not been disbursed. It is the further case of the petitioner that, upon his request, the competent authority carried out an assessment of the value of the structures and zirat land; however, despite such assessment having been completed, no amount has yet been paid to the petitioner on that basis. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the process of determination of compensation has already attained finality and payment has admittedly been made in terms of Section 3H(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956. It further appears that, once such determination has been made, the competent authority ceases to have jurisdiction to entertain any dispute relating to the quantum of compensation. Any such dispute is required to be adjudicated by the Page No.# 4/4 Arbitrator in exercise of powers under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to raise the aforesaid grievance before the Arbitrator in accordance with law. 5. The said prayer is not opposed by Ms. M. Barman, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 6. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and considering the nature of the controversy involved, this writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and to raise all permissible claims and contentions before the competent Arbitrator. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim. In the event the petitioner approaches the Arbitrator, all questions, including the issue of limitation, shall remain open for consideration and shall be decided in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. 9. No order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant