Judgment : Petitioner is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.0.25 guntas in Survey No.70/3/2 situated at Mupkal Village, Balkonda Mandal of Nizamabad District. It is stated that in the aforesaid land petitioner was operating petrol bunk from the last 20 years. Respondents have issued notification to acquire the aforesaid land under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 to widen National Highway No.7 into 4/6 laning from KM 285.633 to KM 308.00. After notifying the land, the competent authority has fixed the market value, for the purpose of compensation payable to the petitioner, at the rate of Rs.306/-per square yard. Alleging that the competent authority did not fix the compensation as per the existing market value, petitioner made a representation to refer the matter to the Arbitrator. When the matter was not referred to the Arbitrator, petitioner filed W.P.No.32277 of 2010, before this Court, which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation. Consequent thereto, while examining the claim of the petitioner, the District Collector, who is the Arbitrator under the Act, has passed the impugned order. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the documentary evidence filed by him in support of his claim for higher market value, for award of compensation, the impugned order is passed stating that commercial sale documents cannot be considered in fixing the market value. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when the Government has notified District Collector as Arbitrator to exercise the powers and functions under Section 3G (5) of the Act, it is obligatory on his part to consider the material produced by the claimants, in arriving at the market value for the purpose of fixing compensation for the land acquired. It is stated that except the impugned minutes of the Arbitrator and the communication dated 02.03.2009, issued in proceedings No.G1/2275/2009, no further order is communicated to the petitioner. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the impugned order dated 02.03.2009 is only the Award passed by the Arbitrator and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he has to pursue the remedy as provided under the Act. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the Award passed. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the impugned order dated 02.03.2009 is only the Award passed by the Arbitrator and if the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he has to pursue the remedy as provided under the Act. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the Award passed. Under the scheme of the National Highways Act, 1956, on acquisition of land, the competent authority is empowered to determine the amount payable, by hearing the persons interested in the land acquired. Under Section 3G (5) of the Act, 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 application by either of the parties, be determined by the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. It is not in dispute that in exercise of powers under Section 3G (5) of the Act, the District Collector is notified as an Arbitrator for the purpose of determining the compensation. When it is the specific case of the petitioner that the land of the petitioner admeasuring Ac.0.25 guntas, which was acquired, was being used for commercial purpose, i.e. for running of petrol bunk, it is not open to the Arbitrator to reject the material placed by the petitioner, to arrive at conclusion for fixing the market value of the land acquired, for the purpose of paying compensation. When documents are filed for the purpose of claiming compensation, by the parties, it is obligatory on the part of the Arbitrator to consider the same before passing appropriate Award. It is true that remedy is provided under the Act, by way of appeal, but, in the instant case, the District Collector has not considered the material placed by the petitioner at all and simply rejected his claim, by recording a finding that commercial sale documents cannot be considered for fixing the land value. When commercial bit of land is acquired for the purpose of road widening, it is not open to the Arbitrator to reject the documents placed by the petitioner for the purpose of assessing the market value, simply on the ground that the petitioner has produced commercial sale documents. When commercial bit of land is acquired for the purpose of road widening, it is not open to the Arbitrator to reject the documents placed by the petitioner for the purpose of assessing the market value, simply on the ground that the petitioner has produced commercial sale documents. While it is open to the Arbitrator to consider each of the documents and their relevancy for the purpose of determining the compensation for the land under acquisition, but, at the same time, he cannot simply reject the documents placed by the petitioner on the ground that they relate to sale transactions of commercial land/property. As this Court is of the view that the Arbitrator, who is the notified authority under the Act, has not considered the claim of the petitioner in proper perspective, it is evidently a fit case to set aside the impugned Award with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the matter afresh. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Award is hereby quashed. The 1st respondent-Arbitrator is directed to examine the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate Award by considering the material produced by the petitioner in respect of his claim for compensation for the land admeasuring Ac.0.25 cents situated in Survey No.70/3/2 of Mupkal Village, Balkonda Mandal, Nizamabad District, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. It is needless to observe that the petitioner be provided opportunity of hearing before passing Award. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.