1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the proceedings pending before the Prl. District Court, Chitradurga in AC(A) 76 / 07. She has also sought for quashing the order dated 31-1-2012 vide Annexure - M in Arbitration Suit No. 5/2009. Consequential reliefs are also sought for. The land bearing Sy. No. 78 of Metikurke, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, owned by the petitioner was acquired by respondent No. 4 for widening of National Highway No. 4 by Preliminary notification dated 20th November 2000 and Final notification dated 23-12-2000. The competent authority passed the award granting certain compensation in favour of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal under S.3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'N. H. Act') before the Arbitrator / Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga praying for enhancement of compensation. The Arbitrator / Deputy Commissioner enhanced the compensation to certain extent as per Annexure - B dated 8th May 2007. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the Arbitrator / Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga, The National Highway Authority of India (for short "NHAI") made an application under S.34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'Arbitration Act") by filing A. C. 76/07. The NHAT has sought for setting aside the order passed by the Arbitrator by filing the said application. The said appeal was renumbered as A. S. Suit No. 5/2009 before the Prl. District Court, Chitradurga. The same is being proceeded with. During the pendency of the said suit, an application came to be filed by the petitioner herein praying for deciding the preliminary issue relating to jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter under S.34(2) of the Arbitration Act and that the award made by the Arbitrator is final and consequently the compensation needs to be deposited pursuant to the award made by the Arbitrator as provided under S.3H of the concerned Rules. The question of jurisdiction was decided by the District Court by holding that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction under S.34 of Arbitration Act.

2. Sri. Siddappa, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings before the Civil Court are not maintainable, inasmuch as, the award made by the Arbitrator is final in all aspects and that the same should be accepted by both the parties and accordingly, the compensation needs to be paid as per the award made by the Arbitrator. According to him, only the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Arbitration Act will apply to every arbitration before the Arbitrator (i.e., Deputy Commissioner) under the N. H. Act and the same cannot be stretched to mean that further suit is maintainable under S.34(2) of the Arbitration Act. Writ petition is opposed by learned Advocate Smt. Shilpa Shah, appearing on behalf of NHAI by contending that there is nothing under the provisions of N. H. Act to restrict the operation of Arbitration Act in respect of procedure only.

3. S.3G of the N. H. Act deals with determination of amount payable as compensation in respect of the land lost by the landowners for the benefit of the National High way Authority. Sub-section (1) of S.3G reveals that where the (and is acquired under the provisions of N. H. Act, compensation shall be determined by the competent authority. Under sub-section (5) of S.3G, if the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or (2) is not agreeable to either of the parties, an application by either of the parties may be made and the same shall be determined by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. Undisputedly, in the matter on hand, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner is appointed as Arbitrator by the Central Government. Thus the Arbitrator / Deputy Commissioner has determined the compensation between the parties as per Annexure - B. Sub-section (6) of S.3G clarifies that subject to the provisions of