JUDGMENT :

1. By way of filing this appeal, appellant-National Highways Authority of India (for short 'NHAI') has invoked the appellate jurisdiction of High Court within scope of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "Act of 1996"), assailing the dismissal of their objections under Section 34 of Act of 1996 by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 25.11.2017 and appellant is also assailing the arbitration award dated 03.12.2014 passed in case No.78/2011 by the District Collector, Jaipur who was sole nominated arbitrator by the Central Government under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short "Act of 1956") to determine the amount of compensation of land in question of respondent Nos.1 and 2, sought to be acquired under the Act of 1956.

2. The basic issue raised by the NHAI in present appeal is that the compensation of the acquired land admeasuring 2786 Sq.Mtrs. of respondent Nos.1 and 2, as assessed by the Arbitrator applying the commercial rate by treating the nature of land as of commercial, is not correct because land in question is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue record and was never converted for commercial use, as such the compensation should have been assessed according to the DLC rate of agricultural land.

3. The factual matrix as culled out from the record are that Government of India issued notification dated 05.02.2008 under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'NHA Act') to acquire the land of various persons for the purpose of widening the National Highway No.8 from Gurgaon-Kotputli-Jaipur and thereafter declaration under Section 3-D of Act of 1956 was issued on 05.02.2009. An area of 2786 Sq.Mtrs of the land belonging to respondent Nos.1 and 2 of Khasara No.646 and 655 situated at Mauja Lada Ka Bas, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur also came under such acquisition proceeding, which were recorded as agricultural land in Revenue Record, despite passing the conversion order on 08.10.2002. The competent authority determined the compensation by applying the then DLC rate of agricultural land, although the respondent Nos.1 and 2 claimed for assessing the compensation by applying the commercial rate. According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, their lands have been converted from agricultural to commercial vide order dated 08.10.2002 being No.Revenue-18 B(4) 2002/H/11950 passed by District Collector, much prior to issuance of notification dated 05.02.2008 under Section 3-A of Act of 1956. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 refused to accept the determined compensation by Competent Authority and claimed the higher compensation at the rate of commercial, therefore for determination of compensation, central government appointed the District Collector, Jaipur as sole Arbitrator to hear and decide the claim of respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Section 3-G (5) of the Act of 1956. The Arbitrator after hearing both parties had passed its award dated 03.12.2014 determining the compensation of acquired land of respondent Nos.1 and 2 at the commercial rate as applicable at the time of acquisition. the Arbitrator placed reliance upon the order of conversion dated 08.10.2002. The Arbitrator, in its award dated 03.12.2014 has clearly observed that the land under acquisition of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has already been converted from agricultural to commercial vide order dated 08.10.2002 and the copy of conversion order was also sent to Tehsildar Kotputli, Jaipur to make entries in revenue record but the conversion order could not enter into the revenue record and for which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 may not be held guilty or negligent in any way. The arbitrator has held that once the land in question of respondent Nos.1 and 2 have been converted into commercial land, they are entitled to get the compensation according to commercial rate and not according to DLC of agricultural land. Thus, Arbitrator has assessed the total compensation Rs. 2,53,06723/- payable to respondent