PUJA LALWANI vs UNION OF INDIA

1

CGHC010089192021 2026:CGHC:39211
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
AVINASH
SHARMA
WPC No. 1936 of 2021
Digitally signed
by AVINASH
SHARMA
Date: 2026.09.09
15:05:21 +0530
1 - Puja Lalwani W/o Vijay Kumar Aged About 42 Years Owner Of Land Bearing
Khasra No. 719/7 Village Belmundi) R/o Kalibadi Sarkanda Bilaspur C.G.
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Union Of India Through The Secretary Ministry Of Road Transport And
Highways, New Delhi 110001.
2 - National Highway Authority Of India, Through The Chairman, G-5 And 6, Sector
10, Dwarika, New Delhi.
3 - Chief Engineer, Public Works Department National Highway Division Raipur,
District Raipur C.G.
4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Cum Competent Authority, National Highway
Bilapur, District Bilaspur C.G.
5 - Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G.
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Puja Lalwani, petitioner in person.
For Respondent
Nos.2 & 3
: Shri Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate.
For
State/respondent
: Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy AG.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order on Board
07/09/2026
1. Vide order dated 21.08.2026 passed by this Court, petitioner Puja Lalwani
was granted time to file appropriate application for engaging another
advocate as her previous counsel was not interested to represent the case.
2. Pursuant thereto, petitioner has filed I.A. No.1/2026, application seeking

2
permission to appear, argue and prosecute the matter as party in person.
3. On due consideration, the said application is allowed and Ms. Puja Lalwani is
permitted to appear, argue and prosecute the matter as petitioner in person.
4. This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“10.1. That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to issue
appropriate writ, order, direction and direct the respondent to
re-determined the award by applying the multiplication factor
of TWO as per the division bench judgment of this Hon'ble
Court in W.P. (C) no. 1961/2018 and Rev. P. no. 10/2019
Union of India Vs. Mahadev Gond dated 24.06.2019.
10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant
any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.
5. In the writ petition, it has been pleaded by the petitioner that respondents had
issued a notification under the provision of National Highways Act and
thereafter the final award was passed on 01.06.2018. However, the
respondents authorities failed to performed their duties as per the Section 26
of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 read with schedule First of the Act
of 2013, which provides for the appropriate multiplication factor to be
included in the award. It has also been pleaded that final award as per the
provisions of Act, 2013 shall include the four essential ingredients (i) market
value (ii) rate of interest (iii) multiplication factor (iv) solatium and in the
instant case the respondents have failed to apply the multiplication factor of
TWO as per the notification dated 02.05.2019.

3
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NHAI at the outset submits
that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under
Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 to redress her grievance.
7. Petitioner in person in view of the availability of an alternative remedy under
Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, submits that she may be
permitted to avail the said remedy in accordance with law.
8. In a case with similar background, this Court in WA No.140 of 2022 and other
connected matters while disposing the said appeal on 10.12.2024 took notice
of the following questions posed by this Court in WA No.07/2019 and other
connected matters {Ashutosh Agrawal and Another vs. Union of India and
Others}:-
(f) If there is patent arbitrariness in the ‘decision making
process’ and the decision taken, should the party be
relegated to the remedy by way of Arbitration and whether
the course pursued by the learned Single Judge declining to
interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can
be justified; more so, where there is no disputed question of
fact ?
(g) Is the alternate remedy a bar of law, or rule of
convenience ?”
The Division Bench of this Court in para 17 held as under:-
17. After hearing both the sides and also in view of the
precedents cited from both the sides, we do not have any
doubt to hold that power of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, which is even wider of the power of
the Apex Court under Article 32 cannot be curtailed by any
statute. The existence of alternate remedy is more a 'rule of
convenience' and the parties would be relegated to pursue

4
such remedy, under normal circumstances. But if special
circumstances are involved or whether the proceeding
under challenge is per se arbitrary and illegal or if it has
resulted in total miscarriage of justice, the discretionary
power vested in this Court to have the matter considered
under Article 226 is always there, to be invoked. In view of
the particular nature of challenge raised and the factual
position demonstrated by the Appellants, resulting in
payment of higher compensation to an adjoining / identical
property having a lesser extent/area while awarding only a
lower amount to the Appellants (merely for the reason that
the property involved is having a higher extent) cannot but
be held as an arbitrary exercise and we find it appropriate to
have it considered by this Court. The question is answered
in favour of the Appellants and against the Respondents.”
9. The Division Bench of this Court in WA No.140 of 2022 held that the learned
Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional
error warranting interference by this Court as even otherwise, learned Single
Judge has observed that subject to the petitioners approaching the Arbitrator
appointed by the Central Govt. in this regard within a period of 30 days from
the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Arbitrator notified shall proceed
and decide the matter objectively after due consideration of the claim of
petitioners and the grounds raised by them seeking for quashment of the
award to the extent of the compensation quantified and the multiplier factor
taken into consideration for computation of compensation.
10.In view of the submissions made by the parties, and the findings arrived at by
the Division Bench of this Court, the present writ petition is disposed of with a

5
direction to the petitioner to approach the Arbitrator appointed by the Central
Government in this regard as per Section 3G(5) of the National Highways
Act, 1956 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order and the Arbitrator notified shall proceed and decide the matter
objectively after due consideration of the claim of petitioner and the grounds
raised by her seeking for quashment of the award to the extent of the
compensation quantified and the multiplier factor to be taken into
consideration for computation of compensation. The said exercise be done
by the Arbitrator within a period of 6 months from the date the petitioner
makes her appearance before him.
11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits
of the case. In the event the petitioner avails the aforesaid remedy, the
competent authority/Arbitrator shall consider and decide the matter strictly in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge


Avinash