- (1.) Two submissions have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners at the time of hearing of the writ petition. The first is that the proceedings instituted by the National Highways Authority of India under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the '1996 Act') are not maintainable. The second submission is that even in regard to the award made after 1 January 2014, the compensation determined by the Competent Authority pursuant to the direction issued by the Arbitrator should be enhanced as the Competent Authority has not taken into consideration the principles provided for in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the '2013 Act') for determination of compensation.
(2.) Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority has, however, submitted that the first submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners can be raised before the Court where the matter under Section 34 of the 1996 Act is pending.
(3.) In regard to the second submission, learned counsel has submitted that in case the petitioners are not satisfied with the award made by the Arbitrator under Section 3G(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the '1956 Act'), they can take recourse to arbitration proceedings as provided for in sub section (5) of Section 3G of the 1956 Act.;