Writ Jurisdiction Barred for Factual Compensation Disputes Where Alternative Statutory Remedy Is Available

The petitioner, a resident of Village Dobh, Rudraprayag, owned a residential house and shops that were acquired for the Rishikesh–Karnprayag Railway Line Project

Following notifications issued under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("Act of 2013"), an award was passed, and the determined compensation was deposited into the petitioner’s bank account

The petitioner accepted the compensation but subsequently raised grievances regarding the valuation, alleging that the respondents incorrectly recorded the construction year as 2006 instead of 2012–2013, omitted certain structures like a cow shed, and failed to provide rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Second Schedule of the Act

The petitioner filed a representation on 14.05.2018, which remained undecided, leading to the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to adjudicate disputes regarding the adequacy of compensation and factual measurements of acquired property after an award has been passed and accepted

2. Whether the petitioner is required to exhaust the statutory alternative remedy provided under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 before approaching the High Court

The Court primarily applied the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, specifically Section 64, which provides a statutory mechanism for seeking a reference to the Authority for disputes regarding the amount of compensation or measurement of land

The Court also relied on the constitutional principle governing Article 226, which dictates that extraordinary jurisdiction should not be exercised when efficacious alternative remedies exist or when the matter involves "disputed questions of fact" requiring appreciation of evidence

The Court observed that the primary grievances—relating to the year of construction, measurement of structures, and valuation—are essentially disputed questions of fact that cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under Article 226

The Court emphasized that once an award is passed and the petitioner has acted upon it by accepting the compensation, the determination cannot be reopened via writ jurisdiction

Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the Act of 2013 is a complete code providing a specific redressal mechanism under Section 64 for individuals dissatisfied with an award

The Court found no "exceptional circumstances" to justify bypassing this statutory remedy, noting that the determination of rehabilitation and resettlement benefits also requires a factual examination by the competent authority rather than the High Court

The petition was dismissed; however, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to seek a reference under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 or any other remedy available under the law

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly