JUDGMENT : :

1. The aforesaid Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment, as common question of law is involved for adjudication.

2. The admitted facts of the case are as under :-

it is admitted fact that the NHAI had issued a notification under Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1956’) with an intention to acquire the land on Bilaspur-Raipur National Highway No.200/30 of Balodabazar-Bhatapara Section for its four-laning/ six-laning on 31st May, 2011.

the claimants are the land owners/land losers whose lands were sought to be acquired for the said project.

after completing the formalities declaration of acquisition has been made on 11.11.2011 under Section 3 (D) of the Act, 1956.

under the provisions of Section 3-G of the Act, 1956, the Competent Authority/Land Acquisition Officer i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bhatapara initially passed an award on 11th October, 2012 and calculated the compensation at the rate of Rs.23,76,000/- per hectares according to the guidelines for the market value of agricultural land for the year 2011-12.

the claimants were not satisfied with the amount so determined for compensation, therefore, the Additional Collector, Balodabazar- Bhatapara was appointed as an Arbitrator under Section 3-G (5) of the Act, 1956. The Arbitrator i.e. the Additional Collector refused to enhance the award amount and confirmed the order passed by the Competent Authority vide its order dated 28th October, 2015.

the claimants had challenged the arbitral award dated 28th October, 2015 before the District Judge, Balodabazar under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1996’). By order dated 17th May, 2018, the District Judge partly allowed the petitions/applications and remitted the matter back to the Arbitrator for fresh adjudication. The District Judge has observed in para-41 of the said order that in the guidelines for the year 2011-12, there was ambiguity in the rates of the lands which are situated to the extent of 20 meter depth from the road and the calculation was made as the land was more than 2020 square meter. Therefore, differentiate rate of per hectare was applicable and not at the rate of per square meter. In such cases though the land is adjoining to the road, therefore, on this score, the District Judge has observed that the rule is not clear and ambiguous and hence the case was remitted back.

after the remand, the Additional Collector, Balodabazar/Arbitrator instead of passing a fresh award, either enhancing or refusing to enhance the amount of compensation, referred the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer for re-calculating the award amount vide order dated 17th January, 2019. However, in the said order, it was observed that Rs.11,520/- per square meter, the market rate of the land, would be applicable.

the Land Acquisition Officer/Competent Authority/SDO (Revenue), Simga, District Balodabazar has again recomputed the award amount and passed the order dated 3rd May, 2019 and re-affirmed the calculation and total compensation amount which was awarded earlier by order dated 11th October, 2012.

the claimants being aggrieved with the order passed by the SDO (Revenue)/Competent Authority on 3rd May, 2019 refusing to amend/modify the original award, challenged the same by way of filing writ petitions bearing number WPC No.1850/2019 and other connected matters. Vide orders dated 17th June, 2019 & 27th June, 2019, liberty was given to the petitioners therein that they may move before the District Judge under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 to assail the order passed by the Competent Authority and also the order passed by the Arbitrator i.e. Additional Collector on 17th January, 2019. It was also directed that the cases shall be dealt with on its own merits without raising plea of limitation provided the petitioners move before the District Judge within a period of 30 days from the order.

The District Judge, Balodabazar finally pass