JUDGMENT :

J.J. Munir, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order of the Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Jhansi dated 28.09.2021, to the extent it directs return of Arbitration Misc. Case No. 52 of 2021 and Arbitration Misc. Case No. 2 of 2021, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for presentation to the proper Court.

2. It is common ground between parties that the petitioners’ land comprised in a part of Arazi No. 73 of Village Raimalpura, Tehsil Kulpahar, District Mahoba, was acquired by the Central Government for widening of National Highway No. 76 from 89.600 kms. to 133.520 kms. The petitioners’ land in Arazi No. 73 aforesaid, which shall hereinafter be called ‘the land in question’ was acquired through a Notification No. 2345 dated 18.08.2017, issued and published by the Central Government under Section 3(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of 1956’). The notification last mentioned was followed by Notification No. 3378 dated 08.12.2017, published in the Gazette Extraordinary dated 08.12.2017 of the Government of India. Under the said notifications, a total 0.7507 hectare of land was acquired in Village Raimalpura, out of which 0.6587 hectare was found to be agricultural land, while the balance 0.0920 hectare was determined as State land. The land in question is part of the aforesaid total area of land acquired in Village Raimalpura.

3. A notification was published in two local newspapers i.e. Dainik Jagran and Times of India dated 22.12.2017, asking persons affected to produce their claims for compensation under Section 3G of the Act of 1956. The first petitioner laid claim to the land in question supported by necessary evidence before the Competent Authority under Section 3G. The Competent Authority/ Special Land Acquisition Officer, Banda passed an award dated 07.07.2018, assessing compensation for the entire land acquired in Village Raimalpura, including the land in question, on the basis that it is agricultural land. Compensation was determined, treating the land to be agricultural.

4. The petitioners, aggrieved by the award passed by the Competent Authority dated 07.07.2018, moved the Statutory Arbitrator, appointed by the Central Government under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded. The Statutory Arbitrator, appointed in terms of a notification dated 30.07.2020 issued by the Government of India for acquisitions made in District Mahoba, was notified to be the District Magistrate, Mahoba. The Statutory Arbitrator dealt with all objections relating to the entire land in Village Raimalpura, admeasuring 0.6587 hectare, that was found to be bhumidhari.

5. The petitioners’ case relating to a higher rate compensation for the land in question was also dealt with together with those of others, who had approached the Statutory Arbitrator. The Statutory Arbitrator did not accept the petitioners’ contention, as he did not for other land similarly situate that the land in question was residential in character and ought to be compensated for its acquisition at residential rates. It was held to be agricultural. In agreement with the Competent Authority, the Statutory Arbitrator/ District Magistrate, Mahoba upheld the Competent Authority’s award dated 07.07.2018 by his arbitral award dated 10.12.2020 passed in Case No. 00333 of 2020.

6. The petitioners, like others, aggrieved by the Statutory Arbitrator’s award, moved the Commercial Court, Jhansi under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act of 1996’) with a prayer to set aside the Statutory Arbitrator’s award.

7. All the applications by landholders of acquired land in Village Raimalpura, who were aggrieved by the Statutory Arbitrator’s award dated 10.12.2020, were consolidated and heard together with Arbitration Misc. Case No. 51 of 2021 being treated as the leading case. The petitioners’ cases are A