JUDGMENT :

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

The petitioner, stated to be the landowner of the land bearing Khesra Plot No. 2384/3685/P ad-measuring 0.46 Hectare land situate at IBM, Central Pendam Block, Rangpo Sub Division, East District, Sikkim, has come up with this petition, purported to be under Section 11 (4), 11 (5) and 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1996’), seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate and decide the issue of fair compensation in respect of the land acquired therein.

2. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways published a notification dated 13th April 2016 under sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NH Act’), declaring its intention to acquire the land specified in the Schedule annexed thereto for building (widening/two-laning, etc.) including the bypasses, maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No. 10 (old NH No. 31A) on the stretch of land from Km. 51.870 to Km. 53.900 in East District, in the State of Sikkim, wherein the land-in-question was included. Subsequent thereto, a notification dated 09th July 2016 (Annexure P-3) under Section 3D of the NH Act, was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II - Section 3 - Sub-section (ii) providing that no objection was received from any person by the competent authority and as such, land specified therein stands acquired and vested absolutely in the Central Government, free from all encumbrances. The compensation in respect of land-in-question owned by the petitioner was determined under the provisions of NH Act to the tune of Rs.10,92,04,010/- (Rupees Ten Crores Ninety Two Lakhs Four Thousand and Ten) only. The petitioner accepted the cheque dated 12th January 2017 for the said amount. Feeling dissatisfied with the determination of the amount, it is stated that the petitioner has made a representation to the competent authority under the provisions of NH Act, namely to the third respondent, requesting for determination of the amount of compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement and other benefits by an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government, as provided under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act. Finding no response from the third respondent, the instant petition is filed as aforestated.

3. Mr. T.B. Thapa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring to the provisions of Section 3G(5) of the NH Act, would contend that the provisions of the Act require reference to appoint an Arbitrator by the Central Government, in the event, the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either of the parties. It is further contended that the provisions of the Act of 1996 is applicable to the arbitration under sub-section (6) of Section 3G of the NH Act. Thus, the petitioner has made a representation for appointment of the Arbitrator under the provisions of the Act of 1996 on 17.01.2017, which remained un-responded. Thus, this Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 11 (6) of the Act of 1996, may appoint an Arbitrator, who is non-partisan, unbiased, possessed with high dignity, well qualified and also not being an employee of the Central or State Government, as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes involved herein, in respect of determination of compensation for the land-in-question acquired by the Central Government.

4. Mr. Thapa would further contend that Section 12(5) read with Seventh Schedule and Fifth Schedule of the Act, 1996 requires that the Arbitrator, may not be interested in the dispute and also has any other past or present relationship with the parties, must be unbiased and of unimpeachable integrity. Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents-Central Government, wherein the Central Government has come up with an Order dated 08th July 2016, whereunder Secret