Disposed¶26

Manisha Bhaskar v. The Union of India

Patna HC27 Jan 2026CWJC/663/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Enhanced compensation; National Highways Act 1956 Section 3G(5) arbitration award; Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 34 remedy; writ maintainability / alternative remedy; land acquisition compensation; Gazette Notification No. 465 dated 03.02.2021; MVR commercial Rs. 1,00,000/- vs agricultural Rs. 5,000/- per decimal; Six Men Committee assessment; Principal Civil Court; limitation petition; Divisional Commissioner Purnea as Arbitrator; Arbitration Case No. 129 of 2022; Patna High Court CWJC No. 663 of 2026; Anil Kumar Sinha, J.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file a petition before the Principal Civil Court / concerned court; if filed along with a limitation petition, the said court shall consider it in accordance with law. No relief granted on merits of the compensation claim. ¶26

Manisha Bhaskar Vs The Union of India — Arbitration | Patna HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the challenge to the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner acting as Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 lies by writ petition or before the Principal Civil Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The order impugned is in the nature of an award passed by the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, and the remedy against such an award lies before the Principal Civil Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, not by writ petition.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a petition before the Principal Civil Court / concerned court.

¶26

Key takeaways

If such an application is filed along with a limitation petition, the Principal Civil Court / concerned court shall consider the same in accordance with law.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.), by order dated 27-01-2026 in CWJC No. 663 of 2026, disposed of a writ petition filed by a landowner aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2024 of the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, acting as Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, in Arbitration Case No. 129 of 2022, rejecting her claim for enhanced compensation (her land, purchased in 2016 at Rs. 1,20,000/- per decimal and covered by Gazette Notification No. 465 dated 03.02.2021, was compensated at the agricultural MVR of Rs. 5,000/- per decimal instead of the commercial MVR of Rs. 1,00,000/- per decimal, and only Rs. 5,05,432/- of the determined Rs. 8,86,022/- had been credited). Holding that the impugned order was in the nature of an award passed by the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the NH Act, challengeable under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Principal Civil Court, the Court disposed of the writ application with liberty to file a petition before the Principal Civil Court / concerned court, directing that if filed along with a limitation petition it be considered in accordance with law.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.663 of 2026

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Manisha Bhaskar Wife of Kanak Kishore Bhaskar, Resident of Colony No.- 1, Durga Asthan, P.S.- Katihar, Dist.-Katihar.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport, and Highway Authority of India, New Delhi.

¶7

The Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport, and Highway Authority of India, New Delhi.

¶8

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

The Addl. Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶11

The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea.

¶12

The Project Director National Highway Authority of India, (Project Implementation Unit, Purnea) in the house of Sri Sikandar Singh near Mahananda Colony, Sahaban hata, P.S.- K. Hat, Dist.- Purnea.

¶13

The Competent Authority Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Katihar, 1st Floor, Samaharnalay Bhawan, katihar, Dist.- Katihar.

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

=================== Appearance :	===================================
For the Petitioner/s :	Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Shrishti Rani, Advocate
For the Respondent/state:	Mr. Dhurjatti Kr. Prasad, Government Pleader 14 Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, C.G.C.
For the N.H.A.I. : ===================	Dr. Anand Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rajan Prakash, Advocate ===================================
CORAM: HONOURABL	E MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶16

2 27-01-2026 1. Heard the parties.

¶17

The petitioner has filed the present writ application being aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Purnea in Arbitration Case No. 129 of 2022 by which the claim of the petitioner for

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.663 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026 2/4

¶19

enhanced compensation has been rejected.

¶20

Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner purchased a pie ce of land situated at Mauza - Routara, Thana No. 152 , Khata No. 570, Plot No. 648 having an area of 0.29 decimal by virtue of sale deed no. 3924 on 14.03.2016 at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/- per decimal. Gazette Notification No. 465 dated 03.02.2021 was issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The aforesaid land was acquired by virtue of aforesaid gazette notification and as per the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short “the N.H. Act”) the petitioner was to be paid compensation of Rs. 8,86,022 /- which the petitioner accepted, however, Rs. 5,05,432/- only as compensation amount has been credited in the account of the petitioner. Being dissatisfied with the compensation amount and the valuation of the land, the petitioner filed an application before the Divisional Commissioner -cum- Arbitrator, Purnea Division under Section 3(G)(5) of the N.H. Act, which was registered as Arbitration Case No. 129 of 2022 on 24.06.2022. It has further been argued that the learned Arbitrator did not consider the claim of the petitioner in proper perspective inasmuch as the land in question was purchased by the petitioner on 14.03.2016 at the rate of

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.663 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026 3/4

¶22

Rs. 1,20,000/- per decimal for which total stamp duty of Rs. 2,08,800/- was paid. The land is falling in the category of commercial area and near the land Routara Police Station is functioning and there is a growing market, petrol pump, cold storage etc. near the land of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that MVR of the subject land was fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/- per decimal for commercial and Rs. 5,000/- for agricultural. The compensation amount of the petitioner has been calculated at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- considering the nature of land as agricultural. Before fixing the valuation, assessment by Six Men Committee was not done, however, the Arbitrator failed to take into consideration all the relevant points taken by the petitioner during the course of argument.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the N.H. as well as State argued that the award / order passed by the Arbitrator can be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Against the award of the Arbitrator the petitioner has the remedy before the Principal Civil Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the order impugned is in the nature of award passed by the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.663 of 2026(2) dt.27-01-2026 4/4

¶26

the N.H. Act, accordingly, this writ application is disposed with liberty to the petitioner to file a petition before the Principal Civil Court / concerned court. If such an application is filed along with limitation petition, the Principal Civil Court / concerned court shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶27

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)

¶28

praful/-

¶29

Manisha Bhaskar v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Bhaskar v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakal Dev Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Alim Akhtar @ Md. Alim Akhtar Vs The State of Bihar

Bipin Bihari Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Shankar Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjeev Kumar Vs The State of Bihar