Disputes over acquired area and compensation must be pursued through statutory remedies, not writ jurisdiction.

The petitioner claimed ownership of land bearing Khasra No. 362/1/8/2, admeasuring 0.028 hectares, situated at Village Kudri, Tehsil Suhagpur, District Shahdol.

A land acquisition award was initially passed on 21 August 2015 and an amended award was subsequently passed on 15 September 2016.

The petitioner contended that compensation had been determined only for 0.009 hectares, although the acquired area allegedly required determination as 0.015 hectares or 0.028 hectares.

Her application before the Arbitrator/competent authority under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, was rejected on 16 April 2019.

An earlier writ petition, W.P. No. 2261 of 2024, was disposed of on 20 February 2024 with liberty to avail other remedies in accordance with law.

The respondents asserted that the land had already been acquired and compensation paid, and that the petitioner’s remedy lay in further arbitral proceedings under Section 3G(6) of the National Highways Act read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Whether the petitioner could obtain, in a writ petition under Article 226, a determination of the exact area acquired and consequential enhancement or redetermination of compensation despite the rejection of her application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

Whether the petitioner should be directed to pursue the alternative statutory remedy available against the decision rendered under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but applied the principle that disputed questions concerning the exact area acquired and compensation under the National Highways Act should ordinarily be pursued through the statutory mechanism provided by that enactment.

Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides for determination of disputes regarding the amount of compensation by the competent authority or Arbitrator.

The Court also noted the further remedy contemplated under Section 3G(6) of the National Highways Act read with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in accordance with law.

The Court found that the petitioner had already invoked the statutory mechanism under Section 3G(5) and had challenged the compensation determination before the concerned authority, but remained dissatisfied with the determination of the acquired area and compensation.

Since the dispute required examination of the factual question regarding the exact area acquired, the High Court held that a writ petition was not the appropriate forum for undertaking that determination.

In view of the statutory remedies available against the order under Section 3G(5), and the liberty already granted in the earlier writ petition, the Court declined to examine the petitioner’s claims on merits and directed her to pursue the remedies available in law.

The petitioner was directed to avail the other remedies available in law, consistently with the order dated 20 February 2024 in W.P. No. 2261 of 2024, for ventilating her grievance concerning the acquired area and compensation.

The Court further directed that, if the petitioner initiated appropriate proceedings, the concerned authority should consider and decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, having regard to the prolonged litigation.