Arbitrators under the National Highways Act act as fact-finding authorities and should allow expert opinions under Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, because the limited scope of judicial review under Section 34 necessitates thorough evidence gathering during the arbitration process.

ORDER :

Vishal Mishra, J.

This petition is filed assailing the order dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No.3-Collector-cum-Arbitrator District Singrauli (M.P.) whereby the petitioner's application filed under Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been rejected on the ground that since 10 years have elapsed from the date of acquisition, therefore, no opinion could be sought from an expert.

2. It is a case of the petitioner that his land is situated at Village Jiyawan bearing Khasra No.374/2 admeasuring 0.040 hectare. The said land was acquired for construction of Highway No. 75 (Four Lane). The petitioner came to know about the said fact when notices were served upon him and Rs.77,176/- was adjudged as compensation to him. The petitioner raised objections by filing an application but no heed was paid on the objections made by him. He preferred an appeal under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956 pointing out that the land is diverted as multiple crops cultivated thereover and the land adjacent to petitioner's land was sold @ 450 per square feet as per Guideline value. The value of petitioner's land is more than 450 per square feet. The case was initially registered before the respondent No.2/Commissioner and vide order dated 14.02.2022, taking into consideration sub-sections (6) and (7) of Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956, the matter was transferred to the respondent No.3/Collector. During the pendency of the matter, an application under Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by the petitioner. The same was rejected by the Collector-cum-Arbitrator vide impugned order dated 04.03.2022. The reason assigned was that since the evaluation of error of award of compensation of Land Acquisition Officer cannot be permitted at a particular stage, accordingly, the application was rejected. The report in the pending case was called for from the respondents No. 4 and 5 and upon the same, respondent No. 4/Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer submitted his report before the respondent No. 3/Collector in the tabulation form. From the perusal of the report, it was clearly mentioned that compensation of petitioner's land should be done on the basis of Guideline of 2012-13 and as per Clause 4.4 of the Guideline of 2012-13.

3. It is a case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the Guideline of 2012- 13 as well as sub-clause (b) of Clause 4.4 of the Guideline of 2012-13 and the Appendix 1 Clause 11 of the Valuation, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 13 Lakhs. Therefore, on the basis of such discrepancies between the report of respondents No.4 and 5, the petitioner moved an application under Section 26 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking an expert opinion on the basis of factual differences available on record. The said application has been rejected by the respondent No.3/Collector-cum-Arbitrator; therefore, this petition is filed.

4. It is submitted that in order to decide the arbitration case in a proper manner, in accordance with law, such application should have been allowed. Placing reliance upon the judgments passed by the High Court of Kerela at Ernakulam in the cases of Unnikrishnan and another vs Arbitrator (District Collector) reported in 2023 SCC Online Ker 4755 and Punarnava Ayurveda Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs Arbitrator for NH-66 and District Collector reported in 2024 SCC Online Ker 2128, petitioner's counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned order. It is pointed out that the arbitration proceedings are still pending consideration.

5. On notice being issued, separate replies have been filed by the respondents-authorities supporting the impugned order. They have raised objection with respect to maintainability of the petition on the ground that no application can be filed by the petitioner seeking opinion of an expert till the arbitration proceedings are finally decided. The respondent No.5 has placed