1. - Heard learned counsel for parties.

2. It may be noted that in Writ Petition No.3577/2001 respondent no.2 Vinod Kumar Sharma has already withdrawn his claim as per order of this Court dated 05.09.2002 being satisfied with the quantum of compensation.

3. It is not in dispute that the lands were acquired under National Highways Act, 1956. The land was acquired for construction of national highway and has been taken possession and national highway has actually been constructed.

4. Shri R.K. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.K. Mathur, appearing for petitioners, has confined his argument with regard to compliance of Section 3-G of the Act of 1956 and has argued that there has been total non-compliance of that provision. He argued that Section 3-G contains the provision analogous of Sections 9, 11 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to him, sub-section (3) of Section 3G required the respondents to cause a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language, inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. Sub-section (4) of Section 3G of the Act of 1956 provides that such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land. He further argued that sub-section (5) of Section 3G of the Act provides 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. learned counsel submitted that there was no publication in two local newspapers, one of which was required to be in vernacular language.

5. Disputing the factual content of the argument of Senior Advocate Shri R.K. Mathur, Shri M.D. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, invited attention of the court towards the award dated 01.06.2000, which has been produced on record with the additional affidavit and he in particular drew attention of the court Page 6 of that award wherein it is stated that notice as required by sub-section (3) of Section 3G of the Act of 1956, was published in two leading two newspapers, namely, Rajasthan Patrika in its issue dated 06.01.2000 and Dainik Bhaskar in its issue dated 07.02.2000 inviting objections as to determination of compensation. He argued that the petitioners have remedy of approaching the Central Government for making reference to Arbitrator even now because there is no time limit provided in sub-section (5) of Section 3G of the Act of 1956 for doing so.

6. In view of above, I am not inclined to uphold the argument of learned counsel for petitioners that public notice was not published in two local newspapers. No affidavit in rebuttal has been filed nor any assertion has been otherwise made that notices were not published in Rajasthan Patrika in its issue dated 06.01.2000 and Dainik Bhaskar in its issue dated 07.02.2000. In Writ Petition No.3577/2001, similar Award dated 28.12.2002 has been filed in Writ Petition No.6352/2003 in which notice under Section 3G (3) have been published in daily newspapers, namely Rajasthan Patrika in its issue dated 06.01.2000 and Dainik Bhaskar in its issue dated 07.02.2000.

7. These petitions are therefore disposed of requiring the petitioners to make an application to the Central Government as contemplated in sub-section (5) of Section 3G of the Act of 1956. The Central Government shall pass appropriate order for referring the dispute to Arbitrator. It is informed that the Collector of the area concerned, as per the scheme of the aforesaid Act, has been appointed as permanent Arbitrator. In that case,