IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on the authority's power to remit back the matter under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and the restrictions on judicial intervention under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhaven Construction.

ORDER :

1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ mandamus to quashing/set-aside the order impugned dated 07.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.4 (Annexure P/1) and remand back the instant case before the respondent No.4.

10.2. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ mandamus to issue direction to respondent no.4 to grant the award with interest, entitled by the present petitioner as per the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. 10.3. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2) The facts of the present case in brief are that the petitioner moved an application under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, the Act, 1956) before the Arbitrator/Commissioner, Bilaspur Division and the same was rejected vide order dated 07.12.2021 and the petitioner was advised to approach the Civil Court.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier an award was passed pertaining to the land bearing survey Nos. 884 and 891 in favour of one Deepak Kumar whereas, the acquired land was purchased by the petitioner through the registered sale deed on 16.06.2000. He would further submit that the error that occurred in the award has already been rectified by the State and now the award has been passed in favour of the petitioner. He would also submit that the land of the petitioner acquired by the National Highways Authority of India (for short, the NHAI) was diverted land, whereas, the compensation has been determined taking into consideration the land as agricultural land and this fact was brought to the notice of the Arbitrator/Commissioner in the application moved by the petitioner under Section 3(G)(5) of the Act, 1956.

It is further argued that the respondent authority while deciding the representation/application moved by the petitioner rejected the same on the ground that the application is not maintainable and directed the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court according to the provisions of Section 3(H) of the Act, 1956. It is further argued that the petitioner is claiming the enhancement of compensation and determination of solatium etc. In support of submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 428 of 2020 [Saupatram and others v. Diwanchand and others] delivered on 08.02.2023, wherein it is held that while exercising the power under Section 3(G)(5), the authority cannot remit back the matter to the Sub-Ordinate Authorities.

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose.

5) Mr. Das, learned Dy. A.G. would submit that earlier there was some error on the part of the State as the award was passed in favour of one Deepak Kumar and later on, the same was rectified. He would further submit that the amount of the compensation has already been deposited with the Land Acquisition Officer. He would also submit that the petitioner was intimated with regard to the correction and he was asked to collect the amount of compensation.

6) Mr. Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for NHAI would submit that the Writ Petition against the order passed by the authority while deciding an application filed under Section 3(G)(5) is not maintainable. He would further submit that the petitioner ought to have approached the District Judge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act, 1996). In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhaven Construction v. Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and another [(2022) 1 SCC 75]; para -12, 13, 18 & 19.

7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the file.

8) Admittedly, the petitioner is the