This writ petition challenged an order under the National Highways Act, 1956 and sought compensation for land acquisition. The court held that the petitioners had an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and thus dismissed the petition under Article 226.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27585 of 2020
Petitioner :- Neetu Singh And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Balendra Deo Misra,Amardeo Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Bhawani Prasad Shukla,C.S.C.,Devendra Kumar,Sunil Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
The petitioners by way of present petition seek the following reliefs:-
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.3.2020 passed by respondent no. 3- Arbitrator/District Magistrate, Mirzapur in Arbitration Case No. 07108 of 2018(Neetu Vs. Project Director) under Section 3-G(5) of National Highway Act, 1956 (Annexure-7 to this writ petition).
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2- Special Land Acquisition Officer (Irrigation), Mirzapur to pay compensation to the petitioners as per their circle rate of the land in question i.e. Rs. 5200/ per square meter".
With regard to challenge to an order passed under the provisions of Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, provisions whereof is being made applicable in respect of the proceedings under the Act of 1956 by virtue of sub-section (6) of Section 3-G of the Act of 1956.
Since the petitioners have an alternative efficacious statutory remedy for redressal of their grievances, we are not inclined to cause any indulgence in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition stands dismissed in the above terms.
Order Date :- 19.3.2021 sfa/
(Jayant Banerji, J) (Sanjay Yadav, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should issue a writ under Article 226 to quash an order passed under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and award compensation when an alternative statutory remed
Whether Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 makes Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act applicable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Neetu Singh And Another
Union Of India And 3 Others
Sanjay Yadav
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
