Disputes arising out of land acquisition for the construction of National Highways under the National Highways Act, 1956, do not constitute 'commercial disputes' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and are thus ineligible for adjudication by Commercial Courts.

Judgment On Board

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 21/10/2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), District Judge Level, District Bilaspur in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 577/2021 whereby the application filed by the appellants herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred as “the Act of 1996”) has been rejected finding no merit, this appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter, referred as “the Act of 2015”) has been preferred by the appellants.

2. The challenge in the present appeal has been made on the following factual backdrop :-

(i) Appellants’ land was compulsorily acquired under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter, referred as “the Act of 1956”) and subsequently, on 01/06/2018, award was passed by the competent authority i.e. Land Acquisition and Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur i.e. respondent No. 2 herein vide Annexure A/3.

(ii) Thereafter, being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 01/06/2018 (Annexure A/3), the appellants herein preferred an application under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 (Amended Act 2013) read with Section 3G(7) of the Act of 1956 (Annexure A/4) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, which stood dismissed by the Statutory Arbitrator/Commissioner, Bilaspur Division i.e. respondent No. 1 herein by order dated 13/09/2021 (Annexure A/9) holding that no ground warranting interference in the award passed by the respondent No. 2 has been made out.

(iii) Pursuant thereof, the appellants then preferred application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 (Annexure A/10) before the District Judge, Bilaspur on 22/11/2021 which was entertained by the said Court on 01/12/2021 and notices were issued to the respondents, and ultimately, on 07/02/2024, in light of the notification dated 20/12/2023 issued by the State Government through the Law and Legislative Affairs Department, it was held that since the value of the present dispute falls in between ten lakhs to fifty lakhs, therefore, learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Bilaspur will have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter.

(iv) Finally, vide impugned order dated 21/10/2025 (Annexure A/1), the 2nd Additional District Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Level), Bilaspur rejected the application filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 thereby, affirming the order passed by the Statutory Arbitrator, Commissioner, Bilaspur Division against which this appeal has been preferred.

3. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that the learned District Judge, before whom the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was preferred, could not have transferred the matter to the 2nd Additional District Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Level) by order dated 07/02/2014 as it is not a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015 and no notification under Section 2(1)(c)(xxii) of the Act of 2015 has been issued by the Central Government (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) covering the property acquired under the provisions of the Act of 1956, therefore, the impugned order dated 21/10/2025 (Annexure A/1) be set aside and matter be transferred to the Principal District J