The National Highways Act, 1956 exclusively empowers the Central Government to appoint an arbitrator for determining compensation disputes, overriding general arbitration provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Respondents to refer the dispute regarding the enhancement of compensation awarded to the Petitioner under Award Nos. 02/2022/SW, 4/2022/SW and 7/2020/SW to arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956

3. A large passage of land was acquired under the National Highway Act, 1956 between the year 2020 and 2022 for development of National Highway being NH 334(M) and NH 334(N) in South West District, Delhi. The compensation was assessed and the same was paid to the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner was not satisfied with the compensation and on the ground that the same was not commensurate with the market value, the Petitioner had reserved its rights to seek enhanced compensation and prayed that the matter be referred to arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

4. The said request was made to the Special Secretary, Land and Building Department, GNCTD. However, despite reminders, the matter was not referred to arbitration. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Petitioner’s claim is liable to be referred to arbitration to the Special Secretary, as notified by the Government.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance upon the decision in General Manager (Project) v. Prakash Chand Pradhan, Civil Appeal No. 5250 of 2018, wherein it was held that in such cases, the appropriate remedy is a writ petition. The said decision dated 16^th May, 2018 is set out below:

“ Section 3 -G of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides for determination of the amount that is payable by way of compensation. We are concerned in these appeals with sub-sections (5) and (6) of -G which read as under:

"(5) 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.

(6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act."

A cursory reading of sub-section (5) shows us that appointment of the arbitrator under the said sub-section is only in the hands of the Central Government. Sub-section (6) begins with the important expression "subject to the provisions of this Act", the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are, therefore, of the view that a Section 11 application under the 1996 Act cannot be made as the Central Government alone is to determine who is to be an arbitrator under Section 3 -G (5) of the National Highways Act. If a demand is made for the appointment of an arbitrator, and the Central Government does not appoint an arbitrator within a reasonable time, the remedy that is to be availed of is a writ petition or a suit for the said purpose, and not Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

A similar provision contained in Section 86 (1)(f) of the Electricity Act, 2003 specifically gives the State Commission power to refer any dispute for arbitration. In this view of the matter, this Court in Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Essar Power Ltd., (2008) 4 SCC 755, held as under