JUDGMENT : RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY, J. 1. By this appeal, the appellants have challenged the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 1255/2020 dated 22.06.2020 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants has been disposed of affirming the order passed by the Commissioner/Arbitrator, Bilaspur, Division Bilaspur dated 06.05.2020 wherein the matter was remitted back to the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer cum Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Bilaspur to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the issues raised by respondent No. 1 herein. 2. The case, in a nutshell, is that a proposal was sent by Central Government for acquisition of certain land situated at Village Sendri, District Bilaspur for widening of National Highway No. 130 and same was notified in the Official Gazette on 01.09.2007. The notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, Act of 1956) was published in the daily Newspaper on 20.09.2017. Objections were invited. The notification according to Section 3D of the Act of 1956 was issued on 29.12.2017 and, thereafter, notification under Section 3G of the Act of 1956 was also issued. The award was passed on 01.07.2018 in Land Acquisition Case No. 45/A-82/2016-17 by the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition Officer cum Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Bilaspur). The names of the appellants and private respondents appeared at Serial No. 11/A to 11/E. From award, it appears that the compensation amount has separately been assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer with regard to the appellants and the respondents. 3. Respondent No. 1, being aggrieved by the award, preferred representation before the Commissioner where he sought a specific relief to the effect that Survey No. 396/1, area 0.05 acre falls within his share, on which a house is situated, but the compensation amount has not been assessed according to the market value and guidelines issued by the Central Assessment Board. He has further stated that his land ought to have been measured by taking the measurement of the land per square meter according to the Act of 1956 and its rehabilitation plan. 4. Reply was filed by the appellants herein raising objection that the said court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the application has not been moved mentioning specific section of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Act of 1996) and the Act of 1956. 5. 4. Reply was filed by the appellants herein raising objection that the said court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the application has not been moved mentioning specific section of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Act of 1996) and the Act of 1956. 5. The learned Commissioner vide order dated 06.05.2020 held that the award passed by the court below is to be considered and not the procedure adopted by it and according to notification of the Government of India dated 20.12.2019, the Divisional Commissioner has been appointed as Arbitrator and he has been conferred with the power to decide the dispute between the parties. It is further observed by the Divisional Commissioner that house is situated over Survey No. 396/1 belonging to the respondent no. 1, adequate compensation has not been awarded and he has been treated as owner of the property, but the findings recorded by the Land Acquisition Officer requires reconsideration. Thus, the Divisional Commissioner remitted back the matter to Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), District Bilaspur to re-consider the issues and to pass award in accordance with law. 6. The appellants herein preferred W.P. (C) No. 1255/2020 before the learned Single Judge challenging the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur dated 06.05.2020, inter-alia, on the ground that according to Section 3G of the Act of 1956, the Divisional Commissioner has no power to remit back the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur. The learned Single Judge after due consideration held that it would be more appropriate for the parties to the dispute to approach the Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur to put-forth their claims in the light of the directions given by the Divisional Commissioner. It was also observed that the Land Acquisition Officer Cum Sub Divisional Officer shall explore the possibility of the matter being resolved amicably, since the dispute is between family members. The writ petition was disposed of affirming the view taken by the Divisional Commissioner. 7. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that there was no dispute regarding the title or ownership. The writ petition was disposed of affirming the view taken by the Divisional Commissioner. 7. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the appellants, would submit that there was no dispute regarding the title or ownership. Respondent No. 1 herein had preferred an application before the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur for enhancement of compensation amount as Survey No. 396/1, admeasuring 0.05 acre, is situated beside the National Highway, therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer ought to have applied the guidelines issued by the Central Assessment Board. He would further submit that there is no provision for remand in the Act of 1956 and the Divisional Commissioner was under obligation to decide the dispute raised in the application within the four corners of the applicable laws. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. Jitendra Pali, Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondent No. 3, would submit that the parties are brothers and sisters and in order to settle the dispute, the matter was remitted back to the Land Acquisition Officer. The order passed by the Divisional Commissioner has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge and there is no scope of interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 10. It will be advantageous to go through the provisions of Section 3G of the Act of 1956 and same is reproduced herein-below: “3G. 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 proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. (3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, 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 3C, 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 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. (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 sub-section (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 3A. (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, 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.” 11. From the record, it appears that the notification was published in the daily newspaper under Section 3A of the Act of 1956 on 20.09.2017, objections were invited, according to Section 3D of the Act of 1956 notification was issued on 29.12.2017, thereafter, the notification was also issued under Section 3G of the Act of 1956 and award was passed in favour of the appellants and respondent No. 1 by the Land Acquisition Officer on 01.07.2018. Respondent No. 1 being unsatisfied with the award, preferred an application under the provisions of Act of 1996 and the Act of 1956 before the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur seeking relief to enhance the compensation as his case has not been considered properly. The learned Divisional Commissioner after taking note of the ground raised by respondent No. 1, remitted back the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer to decide the case afresh after affording proper opportunity to the parties. Present is not a case where any dispute regarding title or ownership is involved. After passing of the award, respondent No. 1 has moved application before Divisional Commissioner only for enhancement of the compensation as the same was not determined in accordance with law. If there was any infirmity in the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, the Divisional Commissioner ought to have decided the case on the basis of the material placed before it. The learned Single Judge has also not noticed the prayer made by respondent No. 1 in his application. No dispute was raised by the respondent No. 1 regarding the share or title of the property and relief is confined only with regard to enhancement of compensation, particularly, for house situated over Survey No. 396/1, owned by respondent No. 1. Therefore, there was no reason or occasion for the Divisional Commissioner to remit back the matter to the Land Acquisition Officer-Cum-Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bilaspur, particularly, when there is no such provision in the Section 3G of the Act of 1956. 12. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 1255/2020 dated 22.06.2020 and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 06.05.2020 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Divisional Commissioner, Bilaspur to restore the matter to its original number and to decide the same afresh after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of two months from receipt of a copy of this order. 13. With the aforesaid observations, this writ appeal is disposed of.