1 2026:CGHC:18302-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBA No. 25 of 2025 1 - Anand Khedia S/o S/o Late Radheshyam Khedia Aged About 53 Years R/o A-30, Rama Life City, Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Murli Khedia S/o Late Radheshyam Khedia Aged About 50 Years R/o A- 30, Rama Life City, Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Vinod Khedia S/o Late Radheshyam Khedia Aged About 48 Years R/o A-30, Rama Life City, Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Balmukund Khedia S/o Late Radheshyam Khedia Aged About 45 Years R/o A-30, Rama Life City, Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - Vyenkateshwar Khedia S/o Late Radheshyam Khedia Aged About 45 Years R/o A-30, Rama Life City, Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.04.23 18:00:16 +0530 2 1 - Commissioner Cum Arbitrator Bilaspur Divison Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Competent Authority Land Acquisi琀椀on And Sub Divisional O昀케cer Revenue Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Project Director Na琀椀onal Highways Authorites Of India Project Opera琀椀on Unit Abhilasha Parisar, New Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. G.A. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate DB- Hon'ble Shri Jus琀椀ce Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Jus琀椀ce Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment On Board 22.04.2026 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissa琀椀s昀椀ed with the order dated 21/10/2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the 2nd Addi琀椀onal District Judge (Commercial Court), District Judge Level, District Bilaspur in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 577/2021 whereby the applica琀椀on 昀椀led by the appellants herein under Sec琀椀on 34 of the Arbitra琀椀on and Concilia琀椀on Act, 1996 (hereina昀琀er, referred as “the Act of 3 1996”) has been rejected 昀椀nding no merit, this appeal under Sec琀椀on 37 of the Act of 1996 read with Sec琀椀on 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereina昀琀er, referred as “the Act of 2015”) has been preferred by the appellants. 2. The challenge in the present appeal has been made on the following factual backdrop :- (i) Appellants’ land was compulsorily acquired under the provisions of Na琀椀onal Highways Act, 1956 (hereina昀琀er, referred as “the Act of 1956”) and subsequently, on 01/07/2018, award was passed by the competent authority i.e. Land Acquisi琀椀on and Sub-Divisional O昀케cer (Revenue), Bilaspur i.e. respondent No. 2 herein vide Annexure A/3. (ii) Therea昀琀er, being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 01/07/2018 (Annexure A/3), the appellants herein preferred an applica琀椀on under Sec琀椀on 11 of the Act of 1996 (Amended Act 2013) read with Sec琀椀on 3G(7) of the Act of 1956 (Annexure A/4) seeking enhancement of amount of compensa琀椀on, which stood dismissed by the Statutory Arbitrator/Commissioner, Bilaspur Division i.e. respondent No. 1 herein by order dated 13/09/2021 (Annexure A/9) holding that no ground warran琀椀ng interference in the award passed by the respondent No. 2 has been made out. 4 (iii) Pursuant thereof, the appellants then preferred applica琀椀on under Sec琀椀on 34 of the Act of 1996 (Annexure A/10) before the District Judge, Bilaspur on 22/11/2021 which was entertained by the said Court on 01/12/2021 and no琀椀ces were issued to the respondents, and ul琀椀mately, on 07/02/2024, in light of the no琀椀昀椀ca琀椀on dated 20/12/2023 issued by the State Government through the Law and Legisla琀椀ve A昀昀airs Department, it was held that since the value of the present dispute falls in between ten lakhs to 昀椀昀琀y lakhs, therefore, learned 2nd Addi琀椀onal District Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Bilaspur will have the jurisdic琀椀on to take cognizance of the ma琀琀er. (iv) Finally, vide impugned order dated 21/10/2025 (Annexure A/1), the 2nd Addi琀椀onal District Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Bilaspur rejected the applica琀椀on 昀椀led by the appellants under Sec琀椀on 34 of the Act of 1996 thereby, a昀케rming the order passed by the Statutory Arbitrator, Commissioner, Bilaspur Division against which this appeal has been preferred. 3. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the learned District Judge, before whom the applica琀椀on under Sec琀椀on 34 of the Act of 1996 was preferred, could not have transferred the ma琀琀er to the 2nd Addi琀椀onal District 5 Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Level) by order dated 07/02/2014 as it is not a commercial dispute under Sec琀椀on 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015 and no no琀椀昀椀ca琀椀on under Sec琀椀on 2(1)(c)(xxii) of the Act of 2015 has been issued by the Central Government (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) covering the property acquired under the provisions of the Act of 1956, therefore, the impugned order dated 21/10/2025 (Annexure A/1) be set aside and ma琀琀er be transferred to the Principal District Judge, Bilaspur for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 4. Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, would also submit that in absence of any no琀椀昀椀ca琀椀on issued by the Central Government under Sec琀椀on 2(1)(c)(xxii) covering arbitra琀椀on dispute governed by the provisions of the Act of 2015, the impugned order (Annexure A/1) is liable to be set aside and the competent authority for dealing with the applica琀椀on under Sec琀椀on 34 of the Act of 1996 would be Principal District Judge, Bilaspur. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the par琀椀es, considered their submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspec琀椀on. 6. The short ques琀椀on involved for considera琀椀on in this appeal is, “whether the award passed by the Statutory Arbitrator under 6 Sec琀椀on 3G(7) of the Act of 1956 can be ques琀椀oned through an applica琀椀on under Sec琀椀on 34 of the Act of 1996 ? If yes, which would be the competent Court to hear and decide the said applica琀椀on ?” 7. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would 昀椀rstly be appropriate to no琀椀ce the provisions contained under the Na琀椀onal Highways Act, 1956. The Act of 1956, being a complete code in itself, provides for a grievance redressal mechanism. Sec琀椀ons 3G (5), (6) and (7) of the Act of 1956 directly relates to calcula琀椀on of compensa琀椀on related grievances and state as under :- “3G. Determina琀椀on of amount payable as compensa琀椀on. – (1) to (4) XXX XXX (5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-sec琀椀on (1) or sub-sec琀椀on (2) is not acceptable to either of the par琀椀es, the amount shall on an applica琀椀on by either of the par琀椀es, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitra琀椀on and Concilia琀椀on Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitra琀椀on under this Act. (7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-sec琀椀on (1) or sub- sec琀椀on (5) as the case may be, shall take into considera琀椀on - (a) the market value of the land on the date of publica琀椀on of the no琀椀昀椀ca琀椀on under sec琀椀on 3A; 7 (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the 琀椀me of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land; (c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the 琀椀me of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisi琀椀on injuriously a昀昀ec琀椀ng his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings; (d) if any, consequences of acquisi琀椀on of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change.” 8. As per Sec琀椀on 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either of the par琀椀es, the amount shall on an applica琀椀on by either of the par琀椀es, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. In the instant case, the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division has been appointed to be Statutory Arbitrator for resolving the dispute under Sec琀椀on 3G(5) of the Act of 1956. Sub-sec琀椀on (6) of Sec琀椀on 3G clearly men琀椀ons that subject to the provisions of the Act of 1956, the provisions of the Act of 1996 shall apply to every arbitra琀椀on under the Act of 1956. Meaning thereby, that the order passed by the Statutory Arbitrator can be made subject ma琀琀er of proceeding under Sec琀椀on 34 of the Act of 1996. There is nothing in the scheme of Sec琀椀on 3G of the Act of 1956 to exclude the applica琀椀on of Sec琀椀on 34 of the Act of 1956 vis-a-vis the award of the Statutory Arbitrator passed under Sec琀椀on 3G(5) of the Act of 8 1956. As such, it is apparently vividly clear that the award by the Statutory Arbitrator can be ques琀椀oned before the Court of competent jurisdic琀椀on under Sec琀椀on 34 of the Act of 1996, like any other award by an Arbitrator. The 昀椀rst point is answered accordingly. 9. Coming to the second point, the order dated 13/09/2021 (Annexure A/9) passed by the Statutory Arbitrator, Commissioner, Bilaspur Division under Sec琀椀on 3G(7) of the Act of 1956 was challenged by way of applica琀椀on under Sec琀椀on 34 of the Act of 1996 before the District Judge, Bilaspur, however, by order dated 07/02/2024, in light of the no琀椀昀椀ca琀椀on dated 20/12/2023 issued by the State Government through the Law and Legisla琀椀ve A昀昀airs Department, the District Judge transferred the ma琀琀er to the 2nd Addi琀椀onal District Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Level) for hearing and disposal in accordance with law holding that the ma琀琀er at hand is a commercial dispute and therefore, Commercial Court would be competent to resolve the said dispute. 10. At this stage, it would be appropriate to no琀椀ce the object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as well as the provisions contained thereunder. The Act of 2015 is an act to provide for the cons琀椀tu琀椀on of Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial 9 Appellate Division in the High Courts for adjudica琀椀ng commercial disputes of speci昀椀ed value and ma琀琀ers connected therewith or incidental thereto. Sec琀椀on 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015 de昀椀nes commercial dispute, which states as under :- “2. De昀椀ni琀椀ons. – (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) XXX (b) XXX (c) “commercial dispute” means a dispute arising out of - (i) ordinary transac琀椀ons of merchants, bankers, 昀椀nanciers and traders such as those rela琀椀ng to mercan琀椀le documents, including enforcement and interpreta琀椀on of such documents; (ii) export or import of merchandise or services; (iii) issues rela琀椀ng to admiralty and mari琀椀me law; (iv) transac琀椀ons rela琀椀ng to aircra昀琀, aircra昀琀 engines, aircra昀琀 equipment and helicopters, including sales, leasing and 昀椀nancing of the same; (v) carriage of goods; (vi) construc琀椀on and infrastructure contracts, including tenders; (vii) agreements rela琀椀ng to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce; (viii) franchising agreements; (ix) distribu琀椀on and licensing agreements; (x) management and consultancy agreements; (xi) joint venture agreements; (xii) shareholders agreements; 10 (xiii) subscrip琀椀on and investment agreements pertaining to the services industry including outsourcing services and 昀椀nancial services; (xix) exploita琀椀on of oil and gas reserves or other natural resources including electromagne琀椀c spectrum; (xx) insurance and re-insurance; (xxi) contracts of agency rela琀椀ng to any of the above; and (xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be no琀椀昀椀ed by the Central Government.” 11. Further, Sec琀椀on 3 of the Act of 2015 provides for cons琀椀tu琀椀on of Commercial Courts. Sec琀椀on 6 of the Act of 2015 speaks about the jurisdic琀椀on of Commercial Court and states that the Commercial Court shall have jurisdic琀椀on to try all suits and applica琀椀ons rela琀椀ng to a commercial dispute of a speci昀椀ed value arising out of the en琀椀re territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial jurisdic琀椀on. 12. A ma琀琀er will fall under the jurisdic琀椀on of the Commercial Court or the Commercial Division of the High Court on the following two factors :- (i) it shall be a commercial dispute within the meaning of Sec琀椀on 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015; and (ii) such commercial disputes are of a speci昀椀ed value as per Sec琀椀on 2(i) of the Act of 2015. 11 13. Thus, from the scheme of the Act of 2015, it is apparent that only a commercial dispute can be tried by a commercial Court. For a dispute to qualify as commercial dispute, it must fall within one of the clauses of Sec琀椀on 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015. A dispute will not become a commercial dispute merely because it is an arbitra琀椀on ma琀琀er and and jurisdic琀椀on in respect with an arbitra琀椀on ma琀琀er has been dealt with separately under Sec琀椀ons 10 and 15(2) of the Act of 2015. Every applica琀椀on 昀椀led under Sec琀椀on 34 of the Act of 1996 cannot be transferred to the Commercial Court under Sec琀椀on 15(2) of the Act of 2015 and only such applica琀椀ons will be required to be transferred, which are rela琀椀ng to a commercial dispute of a speci昀椀ed value covered under Sec琀椀on 2(1)(c) read with Sec琀椀on 2(i) of the Act of 2015. 14. Admi琀琀edly, the dispute involved in this ma琀琀er is not covered by Sec琀椀on 2(1)(c) clauses (i) to (xxii) of the Act of 2015. Clause (xxii) of Sec琀椀on 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015 enables the Central Government to include any other dispute in the de昀椀ni琀椀on of ‘commercial dispute’ by no琀椀昀椀ca琀椀on. In the instant case, this Court passed the following order on 21/04/2026 :- “Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General is requested to obtain instruc琀椀ons from the Central 12 Government as to whether any no琀椀昀椀ca琀椀on under Sec琀椀on 2(1)(c)(xxii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been issued. He is further requested to seek instruc琀椀ons on whether disputes arising out of land acquisi琀椀on for the purpose of construc琀椀on of highways have been no琀椀昀椀ed as commercial disputes by the Central Government.” 15. Today when the ma琀琀er is taken up for hearing, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, has produced the e-mail in which the Central Government has sent him the following informa琀椀on :- “1. No no琀椀昀椀ca琀椀on under Sec琀椀on 2(1)(c)(xxii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been issued by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways. 2. Further, disputes arising out of land acquisi琀椀on for the purpose of construc琀椀on of Na琀椀onal Highways have not been no琀椀昀椀ed as commercial disputes by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways.” 16. In view of the aforesaid informa琀椀on provided by the Central Government through learned Deputy Solicitor General of India which has been brought on record, we have no hesita琀椀on in holding that the dispute raised by the appellants 昀椀rstly before the Statutory Arbitrator and then before the District Judge under Sec琀椀on 34 of the Act of 1996 is not a ‘commercial dispute’ within the meaning of Sec琀椀on 2(1)(c) read with Sec琀椀on 2(i) of the Act of 2015 as a dispute arising out of land acquisi琀椀on for the purpose of construc琀椀on of Na琀椀onal Highways under the provisions of the Act 13 of 1956 has not been no琀椀昀椀ed by the Central Government as commercial dispute under Sec琀椀on 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015 and therefore, learned District Judge erred in transferring the applica琀椀on 昀椀led by the appellants under Sec琀椀on 34 of the Act of 1996 to the Court of 2nd Addi琀椀onal District Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Level). 17. The Supreme Court, in the ma琀琀er of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise Limited v. KS Infraspace LLP Limited and Anr.1, has clearly held that a ma琀琀er will be under the jurisdic琀椀on of Commercial Court only if it is a commercial dispute within the meaning of Sec琀椀on 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015 and such commercial disputes are of speci昀椀ed value as per Sec琀椀on 2(i) of the Act of 2015. 18. The High Court of U琀琀aranchal, in the ma琀琀er of Richa Bisht and Others v. Union of India and Others2, as well as the High Court of Allahabad, in the ma琀琀er of Tulsarani and Another. v. Union of India and Others3, have taken a similar view which we have taken above and as such, we are in agreement with the view so taken by the High Courts of U琀琀aranchal and Allahabad, as the appellants’ land has compulsorily been acquired under the provisions of the Act of 1956 for the purpose of construc琀椀on of Na琀椀onal Highway, 1 (2020) 15 SCC 585 2 2020 SCC Online Utt 1386 3 2022 SCC Online All 693 14 therefore, the dispute arising out of land acquisi琀椀on for such purpose cannot be treated as ‘commercial dispute’ under Sec琀椀on 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015. 19. It is made clear that though no琀椀昀椀ca琀椀on dated 20/12/2023 issued by the State Government through the Law and Legisla琀椀ve A昀昀airs Department includes arbitra琀椀on cases but by virtue of Sec琀椀on 10 of the Act of 2015, where the subject-ma琀琀er of an arbitra琀椀on is a commercial dispute of a speci昀椀ed value and nature as prescribed therein, only then the said arbitra琀椀on case would come within the jurisdic琀椀on of Commercial Court. It is clari昀椀ed accordingly. 20. In view of the aforesaid legal discussion and analysis, the 昀椀nal impugned order dated 21/10/2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the 2nd Addi琀椀onal District Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Bilaspur rejec琀椀ng the applica琀椀on 昀椀led by the appellants under Sec琀椀on 34 of the Act of 1996 as well as the order dated 07/02/2024 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur refusing to entertain the applica琀椀on 昀椀led by the appellants under Sec琀椀on 34 of the Act of 1996 and transferring the ma琀琀er to the Commercial Court (District Judge Level) in light of the no琀椀昀椀ca琀椀on dated 20/12/2023 issued by the State Government through the Law and Legisla琀椀ve A昀昀airs Department, both are hereby set aside. Ma琀琀er is 15 remi琀琀ed to the Court of Principal District Judge, Bilaspur for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the ma琀琀er. 21. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Harneet