THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU APPEAL SUIT No. 9 OF 2008 JUDGMENT : 1. Challenging the judgment dated 18.08.2007 in Original Suit No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. An extent of Ac.0.26 cents of land in Survey No.29/A/B1, B2 of Konanki Village, Martur Mandal, Ongole District was acquired for formation 4/6 lane road from Chennai to Chilakaluripet. Under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, 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. The competent authority in this case is the first respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole. He passed an Award. Challenging the Award, the appellant/claimant filed Arbitration Appeal before the fifth respondent-District Collector, Prakasam District, who rejected the appeal. Thereafter, the appellant/claimant filed Original Suit No.5 of 2007 before the court below for recovery of Rs.5,95,293/- claiming it as differential amount of compensation actually estimated and paid by the Government in the acquisition proceedings, which was dismissed by the court below. 4. Under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, 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. Under sub-section (6) thereof, subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. Therefore, filing of an appeal is not appropriate remedy for claiming the differential amount as the Act, 1956 does not provide for the same. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, filing of the suit is not proper and the aggrieved party has to initiate original proceedings before the District Court concerned. Considering this aspect, the appeal is not maintainable. 5. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the appellant under law. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 27.08.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU APPEAL SUIT No. 9 OF 2008 24.08.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU APPEAL SUIT No. 9 OF 2008 DATED 24.08.2011 Between: Uppalapati Chengalaiah …Appellant And The Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer for NH 5), Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole & others …Respondents