Also heard M r. S. Chakrabory v. Nos. 1 and 2

Mr. Chakrabarty, on the other hand submits that the Commissioner had exercised h is power as Arbitrator under Sub Section (5) of Section 3G of the aforesaid Act. He submits that under Sub-Section (6) thereof, the provisions of the Arbitratio n and Conciliation Act, 1996 are to apply to every arbitration proceeding under the National Highways Act. According to him, in the event of any grievance again st any award passed by the Arbitrator, the appropriate course of action would be to file a petition before the competent Court under Section 34 of the Arbitrati on and Conciliation Act, 1996. The rival submissions have been duly considered. The order, which has been impug ned, is extracted hereunder for ready reference: (cid:28)Heard both the parties on 13-12-2011. The views expressed by all the parties pr esent in the hearing were taken into consideration. The claim of the petitioner for enhancement of the Zeerat value is not consonance with the National Highway Act, 1956. Hence the claim is rejected. Sd/- (Shri U. Sharma, IAS) Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, Guwahati (cid:29) From the aforesaid order, nothing is discernable as to why the claim of the peti tioners in not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. In the opinion of t his Court, without entering into the question as to whether the petitioner shoul d have availed the remedy as provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Co nciliation Act, 1996, I am of the view that since the Commissioner was adjudicat ing a claim for higher compensation of the petitioners on account of the acquisi tion of their land, the Commissioner ought to have passed a reasoned order in th e matter. In view of the above, the order dated 12-01-2012 is interfered herewith. The sam e is hereby set aside and quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Commission er, Lower Assam Division, Guwahati to pass a fresh and a reasoned order in the m atter in accordance with law. Writ petition stands disposed of.