JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.6.2005 (Annexure 2) by which the arbitration application has been rejected by the District Collector-cum-arbitrator. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has in his possession an area of land, at his village Bandnwara, in Ajmer District along side National Highway No. 79 in between village Barel and Nasirabad. Out of the said land, 0.3 hectare of land was duly converted from non-agriculture purpose to commercial purpose. The Government, for the purpose of making the National Highway into four lane, acquired the land vide Notification No. Ka. Aa. 385(A) dated 5.4.2002. For this the petitioner was paid Rs. 2,20,634/- as compensation for 0.1 hectare of land, but no compensation was paid for the rest of 0.2 hectare of land. The petitioner moved an application before the District Collector-cum-arbitrator, National Highway, Ajmer.The District Collector-cum-arbitrtor has rejected the arbitration application vide order dated 3.6.2005. Being aggrieved from the said order the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that during the course of pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has filed the con- version order dated 15.11.2000. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the land in question stood converted from agriculture purpose to non-agriculture purpose. Therefore, when the land was acquired in April, 2002, it was already converted for non-agriculture purpose. Despite the fact, the petitioner has been paid compensation amount on the basis as though the land continued to be used for agriculture purpose. 4. Mr. Resham Bhargawa, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, states that the order dated 15.11.2000 was never placed before the District Collector-cum-arbitrator. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 did not have an opportunity to counter or to respond to the order dated 15.11.2000. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the documents available on record. 6. Considering the fact that fresh document has been brought on record, considering the fact that the same has not been placed before the Collector, the matter is remanded back to the District Collector to consider the impact or the consequences of the order dated 15.11.2000 upon the controversy involved in this matter. 6. Considering the fact that fresh document has been brought on record, considering the fact that the same has not been placed before the Collector, the matter is remanded back to the District Collector to consider the impact or the consequences of the order dated 15.11.2000 upon the controversy involved in this matter. The District Collector is directed to decide the matter within a period of three month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.With these observations, the writ petition is disposed off.Petition Disposed Of. *******