Rajiv Roy, J.—Heard Mr. Kumar Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AC to AAG-4. 2. The present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:— (i) for issuance of an order, direction or a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 02.08.2023-passed in Land Acquisition Appeal Case No.30/2023-24 communicated to the petitioners through Memo No.998 dated 08.08.2023 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the writ petitioners under Section 3-G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for redetermination of the award has been rejected by the Respondent No.7 namely, the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division-cum- Learned Arbitrator only on the ground of delay without deciding the claim of the petitioners on merit; (ii) for issuance of an order, direction or a writ of mandamus for directing the respondent authorities to determine the award in accordance with Section 3-G (7) of the National Highways Act, 1956 read with Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on the basis of market value specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for the registration of the sale deed in the area where the land is situated. (iii) for issuance of an order, direction or an appropriate writ for restraining the respondent authorities from taking possession of the landed properties of the petitioners without redetermination and payment of award as prayed for in this writ application in accordance with law. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the award was prepared in the Land Acquisition Case No. 79/2019-2020. Aggrieved by the award and pursuant to the direction of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 1778 of 2022, the petitioners moved before the Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur but the same came to be dismissed on 02.08.2023 on the ground of delay and laches after recording that the delay was not satisfactorily explained warranting its condonation. 4. Aggrieved by the award and pursuant to the direction of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 1778 of 2022, the petitioners moved before the Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur but the same came to be dismissed on 02.08.2023 on the ground of delay and laches after recording that the delay was not satisfactorily explained warranting its condonation. 4. The orders passed by the Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur read as follows:— ^^02-08-2023 vkt dh lquokbZ esa vkosnd ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk] fo}ku ljdkjh vfèkoDrk] ,uñ,pñ,ñvkbZñ ds fo}ku vfèkoDrk ,oa ftyk Hkw&vtZu inkfèkdkjh] Hkkxyiqj mifLFkr gSaA ;g ekeyk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk lh-MCY;w-ts-lh- okn lañ&1778@2022 larks"k dqekj ik.Ms; cuke Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk lM+d ifjogu vkSj jktekxZ ea=ky; ,oa vU; esa fnukad 19-05-2022 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa fnukad 20-06-2023 dks nk;j fd;k x;k gSA vkosnd }kjk jk"Vªh; mPp iFk lañ&80 ds eqaxsj&fetkZpkSdh lsD'ku esa Qksjysu lM+d fuekZ.k gsrq ekStk&f[knjiqj] Fkkuk uañ&214, vapy&ihjikSrh ds vUrxZr [kkrk uañ&34, [ksljk uañ&452 va'k] jdok&0-61 ,dM+ Hkwfe vftZr fd;s tkus ds QyLo:i ns; eqvkotk jkf'k ds Hkqxrku gsrq ftyk Hkw&vtZu inkfèkdkjh] Hkkxyiqj }kjk Hkw&vtZu okn lañ&79@2019&20 iapkV lañ&17 esa fn;s x;s vkns'k dks ;g dgdj pqukSrh nh tk jgh gS fd nh xbZ eqvkotk jkf'k vtZr tehu dh izÑfr ds vuqlkj dkQh de gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk izklafxd ekeys esa fnukad 19-05-2022 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds mijkar yxHkx 01 o"kZ O;rhr gks tkus ds ckn vR;fèkd foyac ls eè;LFkrk gsrq ekeyk nk;j djus ds lacaèk esa vkosnd }kjk dksbZ dkj.k ugha crk;k gSA cfYd foyac {kafr ds fcUnq ij fyf[kr :i esa budk dguk gS fd bUgksaus dksbZ foyac ugha fd;k gSA lquokbZ ds nkSjku ekSf[kd :i ls Hkh iwNs tkus ij buds }kjk ;g crk;k tk jgk gS fd bUgsa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh tkudkjh le; ls ugha fey ikbZ FkhA ;g vfHkdFku foyac dk vkSfpR; fl) djus gsrq larks"ktud mÙkj ugha gSA pw¡fd vkosnd }kjk bUgsa volj fn;s tkus ds ckotwn vlkekU; foyac ds {kkafr ds fcUnq ij dksbZ larks"ktud vfHkdFku@lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa bl ekeys esa vkxs lquokbZ fd;k tkuk laHko izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vr% vaxhdkj ds fcUnq ij ;g ekeyk fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k dh izfr lacafèkr i{kdkjksa dks miyCèk djk nh tk;A vk;qDr] Hkkxyiqj izeaMy] Hkkxyiqj** 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners who wanted the case to be heard on merit submit that since the petition has been rejected by the Arbitrator only on the ground of delay and laches, the present writ petition has been preferred so that a direction be given to the respondent Commissioner to take up the matter once again and take it to its logical conclusion. He submits that after the direction of the Court, the Arbitrator should not have dismissed the case on the ground of limitation. 6. The stand of the respondents, on the other hand, is that an order has been passed by the Commission-cum- Arbitrator and even if it is on the ground of delay and laches, now, the recourse before the petitioners is to approach the competent Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth for short, ‘the 1996 Act’). 7. According to them, an order has been passed by the Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner on 02.08.2023. It is another matter that the same has been rejected on the ground of limitation and in that background, the Arbitrator cannot review its own order. 8. The National Highway Authority of India (for short, ‘the NHAI’) in support of the case has filed counter affidavit duly served upon the petitioners on 01.05.2024. Learned counsel further draws attention to an order passed in CWJC No. 15938 of 2023 (Murari Prasad vs. The NHAI & Ors) by High Court disposed of on 19.04.2024 and it would be appropriate to incorporate paragraphs 6 to 11 of the said order:— “6. It has been incorporated in paragraph no. 8 that if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he has remedy to move under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth for short 'the Act'). 7. This counter affidavit was filed on 10.01.2023 after serving a copy upon the learned counsel for the petitioner and there is no rejoinder/rebuttal to the said statement. 8. The NHAI has clarified the reason for classifying the land of the petitioner and if he is aggrieved and his case has been rejected though on technical ground by the Arbitrator, he still has remedy to move under Section 30(s/c 34) of 'the Act. 9. It would be appropriate that the petitioner approach the concerned Court, if he so wants. 10. The petitioner submits that he will be availing that liberty. 11. 9. It would be appropriate that the petitioner approach the concerned Court, if he so wants. 10. The petitioner submits that he will be availing that liberty. 11. Granting such liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. It has to be taken into account that the petitioner had preferred writ petition and as such, in case there is any delay, it has to be considered in the aforesaid circumstances.” 9. Learned counsel further relied on another order dated 02.05.2024 of this Court in CWJC No. 1363 of 2024 (Santosh Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs. the Union of India & Ors.) with reference to paras 6 to 14 which read as follows:— “6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the case has been rejected only on the ground of limitation, it has to be reheard and taken to its logical conclusion. 7. Both the learned State Counsel as also learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the N.H.A.I. jointly submitted that whether a reasoned order has been passed on merit and/or the same is on limitation, now the recourse with the petitioner is to approach the competent Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (henceforth for short 'the Act, 1996'). They submit that an order has been passed by the Arbitrator cum Commissioner on 08.08.2023. It is another matter that the same has been rejected on the basis of limitation and now the Arbitrator cannot review its own order. 8. This Court is also of the same view. An order has been passed by the Arbitrator and in that background only recourse available to him is to approach the competent Civil Court under section 34 of the 1996 Act'. 9. So far as the no delay submission is concerned, it has to be noted that the Award/notice of the Collector in LA. Case No. 78 of 2019-20 is 09.08.2021 (Annexure-P-3). 10. The petitioner remained inactive for one year and in the year 2022 having thought of the delay approached Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1778 of 2022. The same was disposed of on 19.05.2022 directing him to approach the Arbitrator under the N.H. Act, 1956. 11. Again he sat over the matter for one year and on 05.06.2023 filed L.A. Appeal No. 31 of 2023-24. The same was disposed of on 19.05.2022 directing him to approach the Arbitrator under the N.H. Act, 1956. 11. Again he sat over the matter for one year and on 05.06.2023 filed L.A. Appeal No. 31 of 2023-24. The Arbitrator thus was fully justified in taking decision on limitation holding that no reason has been explained for filing appeal one year after the disposal of writ petition. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he will be approaching the concerned competent Court within a period of four weeks but again the limitation may come into picture. 13. If the petitioner approaches the concerned competent Court within a period of four weeks from today, the Court concerned shall take into account the fact that he was pursuing his remedy before the Writ Court while considering the limitation petition preferred by him. This Court clarifies that the same is restricted to only four weeks and not thereafter. 14. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.” 10. ‘The NHAI’ counsel thus submits that the petitioners have the remedy before the competent Civil Court under section 34 of ‘the Act’, the prayer sought for in the writ petition cannot be extended to them and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 11. Having heard the rival submissions and perusing the records of the case, this Court endorses the view put forward by the respondents. Admittedly, the Land Acquisition Case No. 79/2019-2020 was disposed of on 19.08.2020. The petitioners remained inactive for couple of years and later preferred CWJC No. 1778 of 2022 challenging the orders passed against them, (as per the learned counsel for the petitioners though the details of the case nos. are not on record in said writ order). The High Court took note of N.H. Act, 1956 and vide an order dated 19.05.2022 directed them to instead approach the Arbitrator under the National Highway Act, 1956. 12. The petitioners again sat over the matter for next one year and it was only on 05.06.2023 that they chose to prefer the Land Acquisition Case No. 30/2023-2024. 13. It was in the aforesaid background that the Arbitrator cum Commissioner taking note of the failure of the petitioners to explain the inordinate delay chose to reject the petition vide an order dated 02.08.2023 which stands incorporated in the earlier part of this order. 14. 13. It was in the aforesaid background that the Arbitrator cum Commissioner taking note of the failure of the petitioners to explain the inordinate delay chose to reject the petition vide an order dated 02.08.2023 which stands incorporated in the earlier part of this order. 14. This Court is of the view that when the petitioners failed to explain the delay in filing the appeal within a reasonable time after the disposal of the writ petition on 19.05.2022, the Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur was fully justified in rejecting the claim on the ground of delay and laches vide an order dated 02.08.2023. 15. Again, while the order was passed on 02.08.2023, the petitioners preferred the writ petition six months later in the month of February, 2024. 16. In that background, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner has passed a reasoned order and as such, he cannot review its own order. The petitioners have the remedy to approach the competent Civil Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if they so want. 17. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.