Judgment 1. The prayer in this writ petition is seeking for a mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.1,36,850/-for 119 Guava trees standing in the land in S.No.196/4 at Dhhadhampatti Village, Vadipatti Taluk, Madurai District. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was the owner of the land in Survey No.196/4, Dhadhampatti village, Vadipatti (Tk), Madurai District. The said land was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 for the purpose of expansion of NH7. The further case of the petitioner is that he developed 119 fully grown fruit bearing guava tress and 26 coconut trees in the said land. No compensation was paid by the authorities for the standing trees. The petitioner was informed by the first respondent that review meeting was held on 12.02.2007, to assess the development of the land, in acquisition, for giving compensation to the trees standings in the said lands, after getting estimate from the Assistant Director of Agricultural Department, Vadipatti. Though, the second respondent prepared a list containing the petitioner's land with trees name and survey numbers, the petitioner was not paid compensation towards tress, but only paid a sum of Rs.1,78,750/-being compensation to the land. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on 10.07.2007 seeking for compensation for the trees also. On 16.11.2007, the District Revenue Officer, Madurai, informed the petitioner that appropriate proceedings are being taken with regard to his request. Even thereafter, the petitioner was not paid. Therefore, the petitioner is filed the writ petition before this court. 3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the Additional Director of Agricultural had valued only 26 coconut trees. It is further stated that there was no record available to show that 119 Guava trees were available in the petitioner's land. The Assistant Director of Horticultural, who inspected the land along with the second respondent also did not find any Guava trees in the land. 4. It is further stated by the second respondent that in the report submitted by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Vadipatti, dated 14.02.2006, it was stated that 119 Guava trees were found in the petitioner's land. But at the time of joint inspection by the Assistant Director of Horticultural only 26 coconut trees were found on the spot and no Guava trees were found as claimed by the petitioner. 5. But at the time of joint inspection by the Assistant Director of Horticultural only 26 coconut trees were found on the spot and no Guava trees were found as claimed by the petitioner. 5. Thus, considering the respective pleadings of the parties, it is seen that the facts with regard to the standing of 119 Guava trees are disputed. Therefore, with regard to that disputed question of fact, this court cannot go into the same, while exercising its jurisdiction under 226 of the Constitution of India. At any event, even under the National Highways Act, 1956, section 3-G(5) contemplates for referring the matter to the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government, if the amount determined by the competent authority is accepted by either of the parties. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to go before the Arbitrator, by taking steps as contemplated under section 3-G(5) of the said Act. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is given liberty to seek for appointment of an Arbitrator, as contemplated under section 3-G(5) of the said Act, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any such application is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered without reference to any question of limitation and consequently, appropriate orders shall be passed by the competent authority within a period of four weeks thereafter. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.