The principles governing compensation under the Central Act 30/2013 should be applied to arbitral disputes under other acts, and petitioners are permitted to raise additional grounds before the Statutory Arbitrator.

1. The petitioners' case is that they owned a piece of property in Survey No.18/2 of Tambaram Village, Chennai and the same was acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, that the acquisition proceedings had commenced in the year 2008, and that an award was passed on 08.01.2014. The petitioners thereafter, submitted their request for referring the matter for statutory arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act,1956 since they felt dissatisfied over the quantum of compensation awarded. In the meantime, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30/2013) (hereinafter would be referred to as Right to Fair Compensation Act) came into force on 01.1.2014. As per Section 105 of the Central Act 30/2013, as many as 13 Central enactments mentioned in the IV Schedule were initially exempted from the operation of Central Act 2013, but the same is made subject to Section 105(3) of the Central Act 2013.

2.1. Apprehending that the District Collector who is notified as the Statutory Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956 might not have requisite legal acumen and expertise, and might not be able to interpret Sec.105 of the Central Act 30/2013 in its application to the arbitral dispute before him, the petitioners have come forward with the present petition with a prayer to direct the Government to notify someone who is trained in law to consider the arbitral dispute that they have raised under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

3. The second respondent has filed its counter. It is essentially directed against the prayer sought in the petition. It is contended that it is not given to the petitioner to seek who should be appointed as a Statutory Arbitrator, and at any rate the same cannot be case specific, specific to the case of the petitioner.

4. Heard Mr.D.Muthukumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.K.S.Jeyaganesh, learned counsel for the first respondent, Mrs.S.R.Sumathy, learned counsel for the second respondent and Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali, learned Government Advocate for the third and fourth respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated petitioners' apprehension that the District Collector may not have the requisite expertise in law to appreciate subtle aspects raised in his case. However, he conceded that if only the petitioners' apprehension are allayed, he may not even insist for a prayer such as the one sought, but would settle for a relief that can take care of the petitioners' apprehension.

6. Section 105 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30/2013) reads as below:

105. Provisions of this Act not to apply in certain cases or to apply with certain modifications -

(1) Subject to sub-section (3), the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the enactments relating to land acquisition specified in the Fourth Schedule.

(2) Subject to sub-section (2) of section 106, the Central Government may, by notification, omit or add to any of the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule.

(3) The Central Government shall, by notification, within one year from the date of commencement of this Act, direct that any of the provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation in accordance with the First Schedule and rehabilitation and resettlement specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being beneficial to the affected families, shall apply to the cases of land acquisition under the enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule or shall apply with such exceptions or modifications that do not reduce the compensation or dilute the provisions of this Act relating to compensation or rehabilitation and resettlement as may be specified in the notification, as the case may be.

(4) -------------

7. Under Schedule IV of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, the National Highways