Section 3-G(5) of National Highways Act Provides Efficacious Remedy Against Quantum and Nature of Compensation Determination

The petitioner’s land was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 (NHA). Following an earlier acquisition for which an arbitration case (No. 00010 of 2019) remains pending

a subsequent portion of her land was notified for acquisition under Section 3-D of the Act. An award was passed on 10.04.2024 under Section 3-G(1)

The petitioner challenged this award in the High Court, alleging that the competent authority failed to consider the land's non-agricultural use and existing structures, and incorrectly applied 2019 market rates instead of 2020 rates

She further contended that the statutory remedy under Section 3-G(5) is inefficacious for these specific grievances

1. Whether a challenge to the basis of compensation determination (nature of land and date of market value) can be adjudicated by an Arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of the NHA, 1956

2. Whether the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013, apply to proceedings under the NHA, 1956

The court primarily applied Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956, specifically sub-section (5) which grants wide amplitude to the Arbitrator to determine compensation if the amount is not acceptable to either party

sub-section (7) which mandates consideration of market value on the date of Section 3-A notification and damages to immovable property

It further relied on Section 105 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and the Central Government Notification dated 28.12.2017, which extend the beneficial compensation and rehabilitation provisions of the 2013 Act to the NHA, 1956

The Court reasoned that the language of Section 3-G(5) is of "wide amplitude," meaning any plea affecting the quantum of compensation—such as the nature of land use (agricultural vs. non-agricultural) or errors in the reference date for market value—is open for arbitration

The Court observed that factors like existing structures or the necessity to change residence/business are implicit in determining "market value" under Section 3-G(7)(a) and (d)

Consequently, if a competent authority ignores these factors, the Arbitrator is legally empowered to correct them

Furthermore, the Court validated that the RFCTLARR Act 2013 provisions (Sections 26–29) are applicable to the NHA via Section 105, ensuring fair compensation standards

Therefore, a writ petition is not maintainable when such an efficacious statutory remedy exists

The petitioner was permitted to approach the statutory Arbitrator [para. 15]. Regarding the third relief, the Court directed the concern Collector (statutory Arbitrator) to decide the pending 'Arbitration Case No. 00010 of 2019' within three months [para. 16]. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly