National Highways acquisition compensation disputes should be raised individually before the statutory arbitrator.

The connected writ petitions concerned land acquired for National Highway projects under the National Highways Act, 1956.

The petitioners challenged the compensation awarded, alleging that the authorities applied an improper multiplier and used inconsistent rates for similar or adjoining properties, resulting in unequal compensation.

The respondents relied on the statutory remedy of arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the Act and cited earlier decisions directing landowners to pursue that remedy.

Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides that where either party does not accept the compensation determined by the competent authority, the amount may, on application by either party, be determined by an Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government.

The Court also referred to the Division Bench decision in Puriram Kashyap and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, affirmed in W.A. No. 423/2020, and the principles discussed in Ashutosh Agarwal and Another v. Union of India and Others, W.A. No. 7/2019. Those authorities recognize that the alternative remedy is ordinarily a rule of convenience, not a bar to the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226; however, compensation disputes may be referred to arbitration, with the Arbitrator considering the relevant precedent and applicable guidelines.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ complaints concerned the multiplier and the valuation of properties situated in different places, requiring individual consideration of their respective disputes.

Since Section 3G(5) expressly provides an arbitration mechanism for a party dissatisfied with the competent authority’s compensation determination, the Court directed the petitioners to raise their claims individually before the Arbitrator rather than adjudicating the compensation merits in the writ proceedings.

The Arbitrator was expected to consider the cited Division Bench judgment and other applicable guidelines and parameters, and to give a reasoned decision.

The Arbitrator was requested to decide each application preferably within 60 days of receipt, and counsel for the respondents were to assist the petitioners’ counsel regarding appointment of the Arbitrator.