Chattisgarh High Court
Anand Khedia vs Commissioner Cum Arbitrator Bilaspur … on 22 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
2026:CGHC:18302-DB
Digitally
signed by
NAFR
HARNEET
HARNEET KAUR
KAUR Date:
2026.04.23
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
18:00:16
+0530
ARBA No. 25 of 2025
1 - Anand Khedia S/o S/o Late Radheshyam Khedia Aged About 53 Years
R/o A-30, Rama Life City, Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
2 - Murli Khedia S/o Late Radheshyam Khedia Aged About 50 Years R/o A-
30, Rama Life City, Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - Vinod Khedia S/o Late Radheshyam Khedia Aged About 48 Years R/o
A-30, Rama Life City, Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
4 - Balmukund Khedia S/o Late Radheshyam Khedia Aged About 45 Years
R/o A-30, Rama Life City, Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.)
5 - Vyenkateshwar Khedia S/o Late Radheshyam Khedia Aged About 45
Years R/o A-30, Rama Life City, Sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur
(C.G.)
... Appellants
versus
2
1 - Commissioner Cum Arbitrator Bilaspur Divison Bilaspur District
Bilaspur (C.G.)
2 - Competent Authority Land Acquisition And Sub Divisional Officer
Revenue Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur (C.G.)
3 - Project Director National Highways Authorites Of India Project
Operation Unit Abhilasha Parisar, New Bus Stand Bilaspur, Tahsil And
District Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondents No. : Mr. Amit Buxy, Dy. G.A.
1 and 2
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate
DB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Judgment On Board
22.04.2026
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
3
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 01/07/2018, 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
01/07/2018 (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.
4
(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 2 nd Additional District
5
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 Judge, Bilaspur for
hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
4. Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for respondent No. 3,
would also submit that in absence of any notification issued by the
Central Government under Section 2(1)(c)(xxii) covering arbitration
dispute governed by the provisions of the Act of 2015, the
impugned order (Annexure A/1) is liable to be set aside and the
competent authority for dealing with the application under Section
34 of the Act of 1996 would be Principal District Judge, Bilaspur.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their
submissions made herein-above and went through the record with
utmost circumspection.
6. The short question involved for consideration in this appeal is,
“whether the award passed by the Statutory Arbitrator under
6
Section 3G(7) of the Act of 1956 can be questioned through an
application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 ? If yes, which
would be the competent Court to hear and decide the said
application ?”
7. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would firstly be
appropriate to notice the provisions contained under the National
Highways Act, 1956. The Act of 1956, being a complete code in
itself, provides for a grievance redressal mechanism. Sections 3G
(5), (6) and (7) of the Act of 1956 directly relates to calculation of
compensation related grievances and state as under :-
“3G. Determination of amount payable as compensation.
–
(1) to (4) XXX XXX
(5) If the amount determined by the competent authority
under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable
to either of the parties, the amount shall on an application
by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to
be appointed by the Central Government.
(6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall
apply to every arbitration under this Act.
(7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while
determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (5) as the case may be, shall take into consideration
–
(a) the market value of the land on the date of publication
of the notification under section 3A;
7
(b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested
at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of
the severing of such land from other land;
(c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested
at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of
the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable
property in any manner, or his earnings;
(d) if any, consequences of acquisition of the land, the
person interested is compelled to change his residence or
place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any,
incidental to such change.”
8. As per Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, if the amount determined
by the competent authority is not acceptable to either of the
parties, the amount shall on an application by either of the parties,
be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central
Government. In the instant case, the Commissioner, Bilaspur
Division has been appointed to be Statutory Arbitrator for resolving
the dispute under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956. Sub-section (6)
of Section 3G clearly mentions that subject to the provisions of the
Act of 1956, the provisions of the Act of 1996 shall apply to every
arbitration under the Act of 1956. Meaning thereby, that the order
passed by the Statutory Arbitrator can be made subject matter of
proceeding under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. There is nothing in
the scheme of Section 3G of the Act of 1956 to exclude the
application of Section 34 of the Act of 1956 vis-a-vis the award of
the Statutory Arbitrator passed under Section 3G(5) of the Act of
8
1956. As such, it is apparently vividly clear that the award by the
Statutory Arbitrator can be questioned before the Court of
competent jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, like any
other award by an Arbitrator. The first point is answered
accordingly.
9. Coming to the second point, the order dated 13/09/2021
(Annexure A/9) passed by the Statutory Arbitrator, Commissioner,
Bilaspur Division under Section 3G(7) of the Act of 1956 was
challenged by way of application under Section 34 of the Act of
1996 before the District Judge, Bilaspur, however, by order dated
07/02/2024, in light of the notification dated 20/12/2023 issued by
the State Government through the Law and Legislative Affairs
Department, the District Judge transferred the matter to the 2 nd
Additional District Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge Level)
for hearing and disposal in accordance with law holding that the
matter at hand is a commercial dispute and therefore, Commercial
Court would be competent to resolve the said dispute.
10. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the object of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as well as the provisions contained
thereunder. The Act of 2015 is an act to provide for the constitution
of Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial
9
Appellate Division in the High Courts for adjudicating commercial
disputes of specified value and matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015 defines
commercial dispute, which states as under :-
“2. Definitions. – (1) In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires, –
(a) XXX
(b) XXX
(c) “commercial dispute” means a dispute arising out of –
(i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers
and traders such as those relating to mercantile
documents, including enforcement and interpretation of
such documents;
(ii) export or import of merchandise or services;
(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;
(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines,
aircraft equipment and helicopters, including sales, leasing
and financing of the same;
(v) carriage of goods;
(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including
tenders;
(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used
exclusively in trade or commerce;
(viii) franchising agreements;
(ix) distribution and licensing agreements;
(x) management and consultancy agreements;
(xi) joint venture agreements;
(xii) shareholders agreements;
10
(xiii) subscription and investment agreements pertaining
to the services industry including outsourcing services and
financial services;
(xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural
resources including electromagnetic spectrum;
(xx) insurance and re-insurance;
(xxi) contracts of agency relating to any of the above; and
(xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be notified
by the Central Government.”
11. Further, Section 3 of the Act of 2015 provides for constitution of
Commercial Courts. Section 6 of the Act of 2015 speaks about the
jurisdiction of Commercial Court and states that the Commercial
Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating
to a commercial dispute of a specified value arising out of the
entire territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial
jurisdiction.
12. A matter will fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court or
the Commercial Division of the High Court on the following two
factors :-
(i) it shall be a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section
2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015; and
(ii) such commercial disputes are of a specified value as per Section
2(i) of the Act of 2015.
11
13. Thus, from the scheme of the Act of 2015, it is apparent that only a
commercial dispute can be tried by a commercial Court. For a
dispute to qualify as commercial dispute, it must fall within one of
the clauses of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015. A dispute will not
become a commercial dispute merely because it is an arbitration
matter and and jurisdiction in respect with an arbitration matter
has been dealt with separately under Sections 10 and 15(2) of the
Act of 2015. Every application filed under Section 34 of the Act of
1996 cannot be transferred to the Commercial Court under Section
15(2) of the Act of 2015 and only such applications will be required
to be transferred, which are relating to a commercial dispute of a
specified value covered under Section 2(1)(c) read with Section 2(i)
of the Act of 2015.
14. Admittedly, the dispute involved in this matter is not covered by
Section 2(1)(c) clauses (i) to (xxii) of the Act of 2015. Clause (xxii) of
Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015 enables the Central Government
to include any other dispute in the definition of ‘commercial
dispute’ by notification. In the instant case, this Court passed the
following order on 21/04/2026 :-
“Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General is
requested to obtain instructions from the Central
12Government as to whether any notification under Section
2(1)(c)(xxii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been
issued. He is further requested to seek instructions on
whether disputes arising out of land acquisition for the
purpose of construction of highways have been notified as
commercial disputes by the Central Government.”
15. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. Ramakant
Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, has produced the
e-mail in which the Central Government has sent him the following
information :-
“1. No notification under Section 2(1)(c)(xxii) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been issued by the
Ministry of Road Transport & Highways.
2. Further, disputes arising out of land acquisition for the
purpose of construction of National Highways have not
been notified as commercial disputes by the Ministry of
Road Transport & Highways.”
16. In view of the aforesaid information provided by the Central
Government through learned Deputy Solicitor General of India
which has been brought on record, we have no hesitation in
holding that the dispute raised by the appellants firstly before the
Statutory Arbitrator and then before the District Judge under
Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is not a ‘commercial dispute’ within
the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) read with Section 2(i) of the Act of
2015 as a dispute arising out of land acquisition for the purpose of
construction of National Highways under the provisions of the Act
13
of 1956 has not been notified by the Central Government as
commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015 and
therefore, learned District Judge erred in transferring the
application filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act of
1996 to the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Commercial
Court (District Judge Level).
17. The Supreme Court, in the matter of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise
Limited v. KS Infraspace LLP Limited and Anr. 1, has clearly held that
a matter will be under the jurisdiction of Commercial Court only if
it is a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of
the Act of 2015 and such commercial disputes are of specified
value as per Section 2(i) of the Act of 2015.
18. The High Court of Uttaranchal, in the matter of Richa Bisht and
Others v. Union of India and Others 2, as well as the High Court of
Allahabad, in the matter of Tulsarani and Another. v. Union of
India and Others3, have taken a similar view which we have taken
above and as such, we are in agreement with the view so taken by
the High Courts of Uttaranchal and Allahabad, as the appellants’
land has compulsorily been acquired under the provisions of the
Act of 1956 for the purpose of construction of National Highway,
1 (2020) 15 SCC 585
2 2020 SCC Online Utt 1386
3 2022 SCC Online All 693
14
therefore, the dispute arising out of land acquisition for such
purpose cannot be treated as ‘commercial dispute’ under Section
2(1)(c) of the Act of 2015.
19. It is made clear that though notification dated 20/12/2023 issued
by the State Government through the Law and Legislative Affairs
Department includes arbitration cases but by virtue of Section 10
of the Act of 2015, where the subject-matter of an arbitration is a
commercial dispute of a specified value and nature as prescribed
therein, only then the said arbitration case would come within the
jurisdiction of Commercial Court. It is clarified accordingly.
20. In view of the aforesaid legal discussion and analysis, the final
impugned order dated 21/10/2025 (Annexure A/1) passed by the
2nd Additional District Judge, Commercial Court (District Judge
Level), Bilaspur rejecting the application filed by the appellants
under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 as well as the order dated
07/02/2024 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur refusing to
entertain the application filed by the appellants under Section 34
of the Act of 1996 and transferring the matter to the Commercial
Court (District Judge Level) in light of the notification dated
20/12/2023 issued by the State Government through the Law and
Legislative Affairs Department, both are hereby set aside. Matter is
15
remitted to the Court of Principal District Judge, Bilaspur for
hearing and disposal in accordance with law. It is made clear that
this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
matter.
21. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-
above. No cost(s).
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
Harneet
