Ashutosh Agrawal and Kanaklata Agrawal and Bhagwati Sonker and Sonalal Sonker and Durgesh Sonker and Bhagirathi Sonker and Anusuiyabai Sonker and Sashi Sonker and Saraswatibai Sonker and Dukhalheenbai Sonker and Aatmaram Sahu and Dauprasad Sahu and Puran Sonkar V. Union of India and National Highways Authority of India and State of Chhattisgarh

WPC/3154/2017

AI Insights

The case involves multiple writ petitions filed by landowners whose lands were acquired for the construction of NH-200 under the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioners challenged the compensation awarded for their lands, claiming it was arbitrarily low compared to compensation for adjacent lands. They argued that the compensation did not reflect the market value and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution. The respondents contended that the petitioners had an alternative remedy under the Act to contest the compensation determination, which the court found to be an adequate and effective legal recourse.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 698446 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Indra Das v. State of Assam, Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, Arun Kumar and others v. Union of India, Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Columbia Sportswear Company v. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore
• Laws Referred To: National Highways Act, 1956, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013, Indian Stamp Act, Indian Stamp (Chhattisgarh Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975, Chhattisgarh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guideline Rules, 2000, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B KUMAR; FOUZIA MIRZA; R N PUSTY
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Arbitration; Compensation; Land Acquisition; Market value; National Highways Act; Collector's guidelines
• Section: 75; 47(a); 3D; 3G(4); 3G(5); 3G(7); 3G(1); 3G(3)

Judgement Text

"1 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.3154 of 2017 1. Ashutosh Agrawal, aged about 52 years, S/o Late Shri Kumbhaj Lal Agrawal, Residing at Malti Devi Rice Mill, Simga, Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2. Kanaklata Agrawal, aged about 53 years, W/o Shri Ashutosh Agrawal, Residing at Malti Devi Rice Mill, Simga, Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners Versus 1. Union of India, Through its Ministry of Road, Transport & High Ways, Department of Road, Transport & High-Ways, Transport Bhavan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110075 2. National Highways Authority of India, Through Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) & Competent Authority Under the National Highways Act, 1956, NH- 200, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar & Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Land Acquisition Officer, Simga, Tehsil – Simga, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents Writ Petition (C) No.3147 of 2017 1. Bhagwati Sonker, aged about 43 years, S/o Late Shri Poonaram Sonker, Residing of Simga, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2. Sonalal Sonker, aged about 37 years, S/o. Late Shri Poonaram Sonker, Residing of Simga, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 3. Durgesh Sonker, aged about 35 years, S/o. Late Shri Poonaram Sonker, Residing of Simga, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 4. Bhagirathi Sonker, aged about 31 years, S/o. Late Shri Poonaram Sonker, Residing of Simga, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 5. Anusuiyabai Sonker, aged about 41 years, W/o Motiram Sonker, Resident of Atarjhola, District-Bemetara, Chhattisgarh 6. Sashi Sonker, aged about 39 years, W/o Gajendra Sonker, resident of Bhatagaon, District Raipur (CG) 7. Saraswatibai Sonker, aged about 33 years, W/o Heera Sonker, Resident of Rawanbhata, District-Raipur (CG) 8. Dukhalheenbai Sonker, aged about 60 years, W/o Late Shri Poonaram Sonker, Residing of Simga, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners Versus 1. Union of India, Through its Ministry of Road, Transport & High Ways, Department of Road, Transport & High-Ways, Transport Bhavan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110075 2 2. National Highways Authority of India, Through Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) & Competent Authority Under the National Highways Act, 1956, NH- 200, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar & Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Land Acquisition Officer, Simga, Tehsil – Simga, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents And Writ Petition (C) No.3158 of 2017 1. Aatmaram Sahu, aged about 43 years, S/o Sh. Samaylal Sahu, Resident of Simga, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 2. Dauprasad Sahu, aged about 36 years,S/o Sh. Samaylal Sahu, Resident of Simga, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 3. Puran Sonkar, aged about 43 years, S/o Late Sh. Bodhan Sonkar, Resident of Simga, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners Versus 1. Union of India, Through its Ministry of Road, Transport & High Ways, Department of Road, Transport & High-Ways, Transport Bhavan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi – 110075 2. National Highways Authority of India, Through Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Sub Divisional Officer (Rev) & Competent Authority Under the National Highways Act, 1956, NH- 200, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar & Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh 4. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Land Acquisition Officer, Simga, Tehsil – Simga, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) 5. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents Order reserved on : 3-7-2018 Order delivered on : 18-9-2018 For Petitioners: Mr. Amit S. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Malhotra and Mr.Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Mr.B. Gopa Kumar, ASG For Respondent No.2: Ms Fouzia Mirza, Advocate For Res.No.3 to 5: Mr.R.N.Pusty, Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal C.A.V. Order 3 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in this batch of writ petitions, they were heard analogously and being decided by this common order. [Facts as mentioned in WPC No.3154 of 2017 Ashutosh Agrawal & another v. Union of India and others is taken for sake of convenience]. 2. The petitioners' land situated bearing Khasra Nos.1460/1, 1460/2 and 1460/4 were acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as “the Act of 1956”) and declaration under Section 3D of the Act of 1956 was issued and published declaring that the lands of the petitioners along with other land owners are to be acquired for public purpose i.e. construction of NH-200. Notice under Section 3G(3) and (4) of the Act of 1956 was issued inviting claim for determination of compensation through paper publication, to which the petitioners in respect of aforesaid land claimed compensation in terms of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter called as “the Act of 2013”) and thereafter, written submission was filed reiterating their stand in claim dated 31.3.2017. Award was passed as per Collector's guidelines and as per norms. In respect of diverted land of the petitioners bearing Khasra No.1460/2 and 1460/3, an amount of ₹ 8,80,42,500/- has been assessed and for agricultural land (undiverted) bearing Khasra No.1460/1, compensation of ₹ 16,97,430/- was determined in accordance with Clause-3 of Prarup-1 of norms fixed by the Collector's 4 guidelines issued under Section 47-A read with Section 75 of the Indian Stamp Act and Indian Stamp (Chhattisgarh Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter called as “the Rules of 1975”) and the Chhattisgarh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guideline Rules, 2000 (hereinafter called as “the Rules of 2000”). 3. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions stating inter-alia that the impugned award determining compensation and aggrieved for land bearing Khasra No.1460/1 area 1370 sq.mts. and awarding compensation of ₹ 16,97,430/- stating to be shockingly low & arbitrary and it be set aside and the competent authority be directed to pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of their lands at the rate of ₹24000/- per sq.mts. as per Clause 7 of the Collector's guidelines and also prayed to issue a writ of certiorari and quash Para 3 of Prarup 1 of the Circle Rate Guidelines fixed by the Collector (Annexure P/16). 4. Return has been filed by the respondents stating inter-alia that land acquisition has been made under the provisions of the Act of 1956, which provides complete procedure for acquisition of land required for public purpose for building, maintenance, management or operation of a national highway or part thereof. Section 3G of the Act of 1956 specifically provides if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable either by the parties, then they have a right to settle the dispute by the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government, as such, the petitioners have statutory alternative and efficacious remedy to get the matter referred to the Arbitrator appointed by the Central 5 Government under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 for re-determination of compensation. It has been further stated that the petitioners' objection preferred under Section 3G(4) of the Act of 1956 have already been considered and decided and only remedy which the petitioners is to get the matter referred to the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 and the present writ petitions as framed and filed are not maintainable. It has also been pleaded that guidelines issued by the Collector is binding in nature. The petitioners had not thrown any challenge to the guideline by making any substantial pleading, therefore, question is only of applicability of the guidelines, while determination of the market value, the same can be taken into consideration by the Arbitrator if the dispute is referred under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, as such, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed as not maintainable. 5. Mr.Amit S. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit as under:- (i) That action of the respondent-authorities to compulsorily acquire the petitioners' subject land and offer to pay merely ₹16,97,430/- as compensation violate the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 14 and 21 as well as the petitioners' constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners' land in Khasra Nos.1460/2 and 1460/4, which is adjoining to the subject land (1370 sq.mts. In Khasra No.1460/1] has also been acquired in the present acquisition proceeding for construction/widening of National Highway No.200 between Raipur-Bilaspur Section. For acquiring the petitioners' adjoining 6 land of 1950 sq.mts. in Khasra Nos.1460/2 and 1460/4, the respondent-authorities have paid compensation at the rate of ₹21,500/- per sq.mts. amounting to ₹ 8,80,42,500/-. To acquire the adjoining subject land which is also located abutting and parallel to the National Highway No.200, the respondent authorities have determined compensation at the rate of just ₹ 590/- per sq.mts. (36.44 times lesser than ₹ 21,500/- per sq.mts. paid for Khasra Nos.1460/2 & 1460/4) amounting to just ₹ 16,97,430/- (ii) That the petitioners have also challenged arbitrary and unreasonable as contained in Para 3 of Prarap 1 of the Collector's guidelines which makes an unconstitutional and illegal distinction between plots of land which are up to 1012 sq.mts. and other plots of land which are more than 1012 sq.mts. Clause 3 of Prarup 1 of the Circle Rate is also liable to be struck down being violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and it amounts to unreasonable and arbitrary classification. (iii) That Clause 3 of Prarup 1 i.e. Collector's guidelines issued under Section 47-A read with Section 75 of the Indian Stamp Act, the Rules of 1975 and the Rules of 2000 is unconstitutional and makes an artificial and irrational distinction in plots having an area up to 0.050 hectare (506 sq.mts.) and plots area admeasuring 0.050-0.100 hectares (507-1012 sq.mts.) and also plots having area more than 0.100 hectare (1012 sq.mts.) and relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Indra Das v. State of Assam 1 , Maharao Sahib Shri Bhim Singhji v. Union of India and others 2 , Arun Kumar and others v. Union of India 1 (2011) 3 SCC 380 2 (1981) 1 SCC 166 7 and others 3 , Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others 4 and Columbia Sportswear Company v. Director of Income Tax, Bangalore5. 6. On the other hand, Mr.R.N.Pusty, learned Government Advocate for respondents No.3 to 5, would submit as under:- (i) That, the petitioners are only aggrieved against quantum of compensation determined by the competent authority under Section 3G(1) of the Act of 1956 and remedy of the petitioners is to get the matter referred to the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956, as such, the writ petitions as framed and filed are not maintainable. (ii) That, the the petitioners have not challenged substantially to Para 3 of Prarup-1 i.e. Collector's guidelines issued under Section 47-A read with Section 75 of the Indian Stamp Act and the Rules made thereunder by making necessary pleadings in that regard in the writ petitions and the Central Valuation Committee, which is expert body, has not been impleaded as party respondent in the writ petitions, as such, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The petitioners' first and foremost grievance is that for acquisition of their lands bearing Khasra No.1460/1 situated at Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, just and fair compensation has not been paid to them in comparing with their lands acquired for the same 3 (2007) 1 SCC 732 4 (2003) 2 SCC 107 5 (2012) 11 SCC 224 8 vicinity bearing Khasra Nos.14602 and 1460/4. They have filed comparative chart in respect of all three writ petitions, which is extracted hereinbelow:- Sr.No. Khasra No. Area Acquired (in Sq.Mtr.) Value determin ed (Per Sq.Mtr.) Compen sation Awarde d Market Value determi ned for similar compar able land Adjoinin g Compar able Land Khasra No. Adjoinin g Compar able Area acquire d (In Sq.Mtr.) Adjoinin g Compar able Land Compen sation Awarde d Times less determi antion in compari son to similarly situated land 1. (WPC No.31 54/20 17) 1460/1 1370 590/- 16,97,4 30/- 21,500/- (1) 1460/2, 4 (2) 1620/1 & 1621/1 (3) 1463/1 G & 1464/1 G (4) 1617/1 1950 860 20 144 8,80,42, 500/- 2,68,41, 675/- 9,03,00 0/- 65,01,6 00/- 36.44 times less 36.44 times less 36.44 times less 36.44 times less 2. WPC No.31 47/20 17 1584/3 1048 590/- 12,98,4 72/- 24,000/- (1) 1584/3 (2) 1584/4/ 1 200 190 1,00,80, 000/- 95,76,0 00/- 40.67 times less 40.67 times less 3. WPC No.31 58/20 17 1579/1 1120 270/- 6,35,04 0/- 15,000/- (1) 1484/5/ 1 (2) 1484/5/ 2 (3) 1484/5/ 3 (4) 1484/5/ 4 (5) 1484/5/ 5 (6) 1484/5/ 6 730 300 480 620 480 530 1,77,03, 000/- 94,50,0 00/- 1,51.20, 000/- 1,68,36, 000/- 1,51,20, 000/- 1,61,28, 000/- 55.5 times less 55.5 times less 55.5 times less 55.5 times less 55.5 times less 55.5 times 9 (7) 1484/5/ 7 (8) 1484/5/ 8 (9) 1484/5/ 9 (10) 1484/5/ 10 480 480 560 400 1,51,20, 000/- 1,51,20, 000/- 1,63,64, 250/- 1,26,00, 000/- less 55.5 times less 55.5 times less 55.5 times less 55.5 times less 4. 1581/4/ 1 2120 270/- 12,02,0 40/- 15,000/- (1) 1581/1/ 4 488 1,53,72, 000/- 55.5 times less 9. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to notice Section 3G of the Act of 1956 for determination of amount payable as compensation which states as under:- “3G. Determination of amount payable as compensation.- (1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. (2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent. of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land. (3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. (4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land. 10 (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; (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, in consequences of the 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.” 10. Section 3G(3) of the Act of 1956 provides that before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. Pursuant to which, the petitioners submitted their objections under Section 3G (4) of the Act of 1956 and after consideration of their objections the award was passed on 12.5.2017 in which for Khasra Nos.1460/2 and 1460/4, an amount of ₹ 8,80,42,500/- has been assessed and for which the petitioners have no grievance. The only grievance of the 11 petitioners is that for agricultural land (undiverted) bearing Khasra No.1460/1 area 1370 sq.mtr., an amount of ₹ 16,97,430/- has been paid, which according to the petitioners is shockingly low. 11.At this stage, it would be appropriate to consider Section 3G (5) of the Act of 1956 which provides 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. By virtue of sub- section (6) of Section 3G of the Act of 1956, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been made applicable to every arbitration under the Act of 1956. Not only this, sub-section (7) of Section 3G of the Act of 1956 further provides while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), following factors are to be taken into consideration by learned Arbitrator which states as under:- “(a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3A; (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, in consequences of the 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.” 12. Thus, complete procedure has been prescribed for re-determination of compensation at the instance of Arbitrator 12 appointed by the Central Government and against the compensation determined by the Arbitrator, further remedy of applying under the provisions of the AC Act is available to the person aggrieved as in this case the petitioners. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Act of 1956 is complete Code and prescribed detailed procedure for just and proper re- determination if the land-holder is aggrieved against assessment of compensation passed by the competent authority under Section 3G (1) and (2) of the Act of 1956, particularly when Section 3G(7) also states the factors are to be taken into consideration while determining the compensation. Therefore, it cannot be held that remedy of referring the matter to the Arbitrator for re-determination of compensation under Section 3G(5) is not efficacious and effective remedy, as such, the writ petitions as framed and filed are held to be not maintainable in view of availability of efficacious alternative remedy to the writ petitioners as I do not consider it fit case to entertain the writ petitions on the ground of availability of efficacious alternative statutory remedy and in view of above- stated finding, the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are not helpful to them. 13. The aforesaid determination brings me to the next question by which challenge has been made by the writ petitioners to Clause 3 of Prarup 1 of the Collector's guideline issued for the year 2016-17 in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 47-A read with the Section 75 of the Indian Stamp Act and the Rules made thereunder. Clause 3 of Prarup 1 of the Collector's guideline states as under:- 13 “3- uxj iapk;r ds uxjh; {ks=ksa esa d`f\"k Hkwfe ds Hkw&[k.Mksa ds fodz; gksus ij cktkj ewY; dh x.kuk ds fy;s mica/k%& ¼,d½ Tkc {ks= 0-050 gsDVs;j ls de ;k cjkcj gks : ml {ks= ds IykV nj dk 100 izfr'kr ¼nks½ Tkc {ks= 0-050 gsDVs;j ls vf/kd gks ijUrq 0-100 gsDVs;j ls de ;k cjkcj gks : ml {ks= ds IykV nj dk 25 izfr'kr Vhi%&1½ 0-100 gsDVs;j ls vf/kd d`f\"k Hkwfe dk fodz; gksus ij laiw.kZ jdcs ij ml {ks= ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr izfr gsDVs;j nj ls cktkj ewY; dh x.kuk dh tk;sxhA 2½ uxj iapk;r {ks= esa fdlh ,d nLrkost ds }kjk] ,d ls vf/kd [kljk uEcj dh Hkwfe;ksa dk fodz; fd;s tkus ij ;fn dqy jdck 0-100 gsDVs;j ls vf/kd gks rks Hkwfe dh fdLe ds vuqlkj leLr jdcs dk ewY;kadu gsDVs;j nj ls fd;k tkosA” 14. With regard to the challenge of the said clause, only averment is made in para XX of Writ Petition No.3147 of 2017 which reads as under:- “XX) That the market rate, specified in Collector Guidelines for Ward No.12, Hardevlal-Nagar Panchayat area of Simga, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara for the year 2016-2017 is Rs.24,000/- per sq.mt. for lands on the main road abutting and parallel to Raipur-Bilaspur National Highway No.200. The said circle rate in Clause 3-Prarap 1 makes an artificial and irrational distinction in plots have an area up to 0.050 hectare (506 sq.mt.) and plots area admeasuring 0.050-0.100 hectares (507-1012 sq.mt.) and also plots having area more than 0.100 hectare (1012 sq.mt.). However, while making this artificial distinction the authorities have failed to appreciate and consider that the guiding Clause No.7-Prarup 1 removes and/or obliterates and/or effaces the said artificial distinction in case the land to be acquired touches the main highway and even if the land is situated within first 20 meters of the High Court. If this Clause 7-Prarup 1 is considered and applied 14 then in respect of the Petitioners' Subject Land in 1584/3 admeasuring 1048 sq.mt. the market value of Rs.24,000/- per sq.mt. would be applicable irrespective of the fact that the plot measures more than 1012 sq.mts. which is taken as a cut off for determining market rate. A copy of the Collector Guidelines for the Nagar Panchayat, Simga for the year 2016-2017 is annexed and marked as Annexure P/10 to the Petition.” 15. A careful perusal of the aforesaid averment would show that the petitioners themselves have stated that said distinction is artificial distinction so far as the land of the petitioners is concerned. Even otherwise, it has further been held that if Clause 7 of Prarup 1 is applied, then the petitioners would be getting just and proper compensation. Thus, dispute revolves only with regard to applicability of Clause 7 of Prarup 1 of the Collector's guidelines. That can be looked into by the Arbitrator appointed under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956. The respondents have rightly argued that there is no substantial pleading with regard to challenge made to Clause 3 of Prarup 1 of the Collector's guidelines and challenging the validity, particularly in view of the fact that the Collector's guidelines statutory in nature approved by the Central Valuation Committee who happens to be the Inspector General (Registration) has not been impleaded as party respondent. Thus, the petitioners have not made sufficient pleading to challenge Clause 3 of Prarup 1 by raising specific pleading to question that and even not impleaded the authority who issued the said guidelines, which is statutory in nature. Thus, it cannot be held that sincere and serious attack has been made to the validity of said Clause 3 of Prarup 1 of the Collector's guidelines for the year 2016-17, as such, both the contentions raised on behalf of the 15 petitioners fail. 16. As a fallout and consequence of the above-stated discussion, the writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby dismissed reserving liberty in favour of the petitioners to avail remedy available under Section 3G(5) of the Act of 1956 before the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government in accordance with law for re-determination of compensation. 17. Needless to say, if the dispute is raised by the petitioners before the Arbitrator within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, learned Arbitrator would consider and decide the determination of compensation on merits in accordance with law. 18. The writ petitions are dismissed subject to above-stated observation. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge B/- "