Co-owner's independent petition for arbitration is not maintainable when the same cause is pending adjudication.

The petitioner, a co-owner of land in Village Ghayaj, Vadodara, challenged the land acquisition proceedings (and subsequent award) undertaken for the Vadodara–Mumbai Expressway

The petitioner had initially filed an application under Section 64 of the 2013 Act, which was rejected on 31.08.2024 because the acquisition was governed by the National Highways Act, 1956

Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 3G(5) of the 1956 Act on 03.10.2024

Crucially, the petitioner’s father (also a co-owner) had previously filed a writ petition for the same relief, which was dismissed on 05.02.2026

The father also had an active arbitration proceeding regarding the same land where the mandate of the Arbitrator had been extended by the District Court until September 2026

1. Whether a co-owner can maintain a separate writ petition and seek a separate arbitration direction when the same relief was previously denied to another co-owner and the matter is already seized by an Arbitrator

2. Whether the mandate of the Arbitrator had expired, necessitating fresh directions

Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which provides for the determination of compensation by an arbitrator if the amount determined by the competent authority is not acceptable

Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding the extension of the mandate of an arbitrator

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, (specifically Section 64) is not the applicable forum for challenges where the acquisition is specifically initiated under the 1956 Act

The court found the petition to be "wholly misconceived" because the petitioner’s interests were already represented in ongoing legal processes

The court noted that the petitioner’s father, as a co-owner of the exact same survey blocks, had already litigated the matter and failed in a prior Special Civil Application

The court rejected the petitioner's verbal claim that there were "two separate awards" for the co-owners, noting a lack of supporting material

Furthermore, the court observed that since the Collector (acting as Arbitrator) was already seized of the matter via the father’s application—and the District Court had legally extended the arbitrator's mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration Act—there was no legal ground for a second, separate application for the same land

The court affirmed that the Arbitrator’s mandate is currently valid due to the extension granted by the Civil Court. No costs were ordered