Judgment : 1. Being aggrieved by the determination of the value by the District Collector, Vellore / Arbitrator, under the National Highways Act, 1956, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the first respondent in Na.Ka.G4/11764/2004 dated 18.07.2013 and consequently, prayed for a direction to the respondents to enhance the compensation in respect of the total extent of 13800 sq.metres of Agricultural Land, comprised in different Survey Nos.99/2C2, 99/2E, 185/3B, 190/2A, 191/2C2 and 192/2B2 of Naatrampalli Village, Thiruppathur Taluk, Vellore District from Rs.319.48 per square metre to Rs.1,005/- per square metre in the light of documents submitted by the petitioner and to disburse him the difference of compensation amount. 2. Material on record discloses that pursuant to the proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956, the Competent Authority and the Special District Revenue Officer, (LA-NH, 4&46), Vellore District, Vellore, vide his proceedings in G4/20343/02 dated 29.04.2004 has determined the compensation, at the rate of Rs.319.48 per sq.metre. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a representation dated 3.3.2007 to the District Collector-cum-Arbitrator, under the above said Act, for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.1,500/-per sq.metre. Material on record further discloses that vide proceedings in Na.Ka.G.11764/04 dated 23.07.2010, the District Collector-cum-Arbitrator has enhanced the market value of the land per square foot as Rs.344.02. Again, the petitioner has made a representation on 28.11.2011 for enhancement of compensation to Rs.1005/- per sq.metre. 3. Contending inter alia that the said representation has not been disposed of, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.8341 of 2013 and vide order dated 03.4.2013, this Court has directed the District Collector-cum-Arbitrator to pass orders. Pursuant to the said direction, the District Collector-cum-Arbitrator has rejected the representation on the ground that compensation has already been enhanced and there is no provision under the National Highways Act, 1956, for further enhancement, by the District Collector/Arbitrator. 4. Consequently, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking to quash the order of the Competent Authority-cum-District Collector, Chathuvachari, Vellore District, first respondent herein, dated 18.7.2013, rejecting such request of the petitioner as null and void and consequently, to direct the respondents to enhance the compensation as sought for by the petitioner. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. As stated supra, the District Collector-cum-Arbitrator, Vellore District, had already exercised his powers and vide proceedings in G4/11764/04 enhanced the compensation from Rs.319.48 per sq.foot to Rs.344.02 per sq.foot. The determination of amount payable towards compensation has been done as per Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956. Section 3-G of the Act is extracted hereunder:- "3-G. Determination of amount payable as compensation – (1) 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. (2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land. (3) Before proceedings to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local news papers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. (4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of section 3-C before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land. (5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or subsection (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. (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. (7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining, the amount under subsection (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration- (a) the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 3-A; (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the and, by reason of the severing of such land from other land; (c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner or his earnings; (d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any, incidental to such change." Reading of sub-section 6 of Section 3-G of the Act makes it clear that subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with appeals. 7. Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is extracted hereunder. "37. Appealable orders – (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:- (a) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9; (b) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. (2) An appeal shall also lie to a Court from an order of the arbitral tribunal – (a) accepting the plea referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 16; or (b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17. (3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court." 8. The District Collector-cum Arbitrator has exercised his powers under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. (3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court." 8. The District Collector-cum Arbitrator has exercised his powers under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. If the petitioner is aggrieved against the quantum of compensation payable under Section 3-G of the Act, determination by the District Collector-cum-Arbitrator, the remedy open to him is to approach a Court of competent civil jurisdiction by way of filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The direction granted by this Court in W.P.No.8341 of 2013 is only an abstract right. Statute does not mandate a duty on the party of the District Collector/Arbitrator, to reconsider the decision on the amount payable as compensation. 9. In such circumstances, Writ of mandamus cannot be issued merely because a person is praying for. One must establish the legal right first and then he must seek for a prayer to enforce the said right. If there is failure of duty by the authorities or inaction, one can approach the Court for a mandamus. The said position is well settled by in series of decisions. (a) In the decision reported in (1996) 9 SCC 309 (State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harish Chandra and Ors.) in paragraph 10, the Apex Court held as follows: 10. ...Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition.... (b) In the decision reported in (2004) 2 SCC 150 (Union of India v. S.B. Vohra) the Supreme Court considered the said issue and held that 'for issuing a writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. (c) In the decision reported in (2008) 2 SCC 280 (Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain) in paragraphs 11 and 12 the Supreme Court held thus, 11. Then only a writ of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. (c) In the decision reported in (2008) 2 SCC 280 (Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain) in paragraphs 11 and 12 the Supreme Court held thus, 11. The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.: Note 187.-Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. Note 192.-Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. Note 196.-Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned-an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. 10. When a Writ of Mandamus can be issued, has been summarised in Corpus Juris Secundum, as follows: “Mandamus may issue to compel the person or official in whom a discretionary duty is lodged to proceed to exercise such discretion, but unless there is peremptory statutory direction that the duty shall be performed mandamus will not lie to control or review the exercise of the discretion of any board, tribunal or officer, when the act complained of is either judicial or quasi-judicial unless it clearly appears that there has been an abuse of discretion on the part of such Court, board, tribunal or officer, and in accordance with this rule mandamus may not be invoked to compel the matter of discretion to be exercised in any particular way. This principle applies with full force and effect, however, clearly it may be made to appear what the decision ought to be, or even though its conclusion be disputable or, however, erroneous the conclusion reached may be, and although there may be no other method of review or correction provided by law. This principle applies with full force and effect, however, clearly it may be made to appear what the decision ought to be, or even though its conclusion be disputable or, however, erroneous the conclusion reached may be, and although there may be no other method of review or correction provided by law. The discretion must be exercised according to the established rule where the action complained has been arbitrary or capricious, or based on personal, selfish or fraudulent motives, or on false information, or on total lack of authority to act, or where it amounts to an evasion of positive duty, or there has been a refusal to consider pertinent evidence, hear the parties where so required, or to entertain any proper question concerning the exercise of the discretion, or where the exercise of the discretion is in a manner entirely futile and known by the officer to be so and there are other methods which it adopted, would be effective." (emphasis supplied) 11. In view of the discussions and decisions stated supra, rejection of the request of the petitioner to consider the representation dated 28.11.2011 for enhancement of the compensation cannot be stated to be a manifest or illegally error warranting interference. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.