### Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked for Compensation Disputes Governed by the National Highways Act Statutory Arbitration Mechanism

The petitioners, owners of lands in Khasra Nos. 429/2, 101/4, 102, and 104/2 in District Korba, alleged that the respondents forcibly demolished their residential house and boundary wall on the night of December 20/21, 2022, for road widening (Korba–Champa National Highway) without formal land acquisition proceedings or notice.

The petitioners sought a stay on roadwork and a direction for the calculation of commercial-rate compensation and damages for the "illegal" demolition.

The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable as an award had been passed and a statutory remedy for re-determination of compensation exists under the National Highways Act.

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for disputes regarding the quantum and determination of compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956.

2. Whether the petitioners must be relegated to the statutory remedy of arbitration provided under the National Highways Act.

The court applied Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which mandates that disputes regarding compensation determined by the competent authority shall be resolved by an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government.

Section 3-G(6), which makes the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, applicable to such proceedings.

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedents in NHAI v. Sayedabad Tea Company Ltd. (2020), which established that the 1956 Act is a "complete code".

NHAI v. Sheetal Jaidev Vade (2022), which prohibited the use of writ jurisdiction to execute or interfere with arbitral awards when alternative remedies exist.

The Court observed that the primary grievance—non-payment or insufficient payment of compensation for structures demolished during road widening—involved disputed questions of fact.

The Court reasoned that since the National Highways Act, 1956, is a self-contained code, it provides a specific, efficacious mechanism under Section 3-G(5) for the re-determination of compensation.

Following the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies, the Court found that the petitioners’ claims regarding the "mistaken" or "illegal" nature of the demolition and the resulting quantum of damages are matters properly falling within the domain of the statutory Arbitrator rather than the writ court.

The Court granted the petitioners liberty to file an application for re-determination of compensation before the competent authority within 15 days, directing the authority to decide the matter expeditiously and strictly in accordance with the law.