JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. It has been pointed out by the learned advocates appearing for the State in WPA 2148 of 2026 and WPA 2956 of 2026 that their names have not been recorded in the above two matters on February 17, 2026.

2. The names of the learned advocates representing the State in WPA 2148 of 2026 and WPA 2956 of 2026 today, shall stand incorporated as the learned advocates representing the State on February 17, 2026 also for all practical purposes.

3. It has been uniformly submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, the State and the NHAI (in WPA 25931 of 2026 and WPA 2137 of 2026) that the issue involved in these two writ petitions is same and identical with the issues involved in the batch of writ petitions, the lead case being WPA 1922 of 2026.

4. In view thereof, these two writ petitions are also taken up for analogous hearing along with the said batch.

5. Learned advocates appearing for the State in WPA 25931 of 2025 and WPA 2137 of 2026 have filed the reports of the District Magistrate as well as ADM, Land Acquisition which are taken on record. Copies of such report have been supplied to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.

6. Pursuant to the earlier order dated February 17, 2026, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nadia has filed the report dated February 20, 2026 which is taken on record. Copy of such report has been supplied to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners.

7. Learned advocate appearing for the National Highway Authority of India also files a report which is taken on record. Copy of such report has been supplied to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.

8. After perusing the said reports this Court finds that the lands of the petitioner was notified under LA Case No. 4/M-3/NH/18-19 under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 on April 5, 2026; declaration under Section 3D was subsequently published on April 2, 2019 whereupon the land vested absolutely in the Central Government. The competent authority assessed the valuation and forwarded the appropriate estimate for final determination and approval by the NHAI. It is not in dispute that some of the petitioners have already received the compensation.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners raises a dispute as to the quantum of compensation determined by the competent authority.

10. Section 3G(5) of the 1956 Act states that 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.

11. Section 3G(6) of the 1956 Act states that subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to every arbitration under the said Act.

12. Since it appears from the submission of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners that the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to the petitioners, the petitioners have to avail of the remedy prescribed in the 1956 Act. The writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of by leaving the petitioners free to approach the arbitrator in accordance with the provisions as laid down under Section 3G(5) of the 1956 Act.

13. In case the petitioners approach the arbitrator, the arbitrator shall decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but positively within a period of four months from the approach being made by the petitioners.