Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ganesh Nivrutti Ghadge, owned agricultural land in Village Ale, Taluka Junnar, District Pune, which was acquired for widening of the Pune-Nashik National Highway No. 50 under the National Highways Act, 1956. A preliminary notification under Section 3-A was issued on 7 November 2014, and a declaration under Section 3-D was made on 6 November 2015. The compensation was determined under Section 3-G on 3 April 2016, and the amount was deposited. The petitioner's uncle raised a dispute about apportionment, leading to a conditional reference to the Civil Court under Section 3-H(4). The petitioner also claimed inadequate compensation for structures like a well, fruit-bearing trees, pipeline, and bore well, resulting in a supplementary award on 31 May 2018 that enhanced compensation to some extent. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking directions for proper compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The respondents argued that the National Highways Act, 1956 is a complete code providing for arbitration under Section 3-G(5) for compensation disputes, and the writ petition was not maintainable. The court agreed, noting that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of arbitration. The court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to seek arbitration within four weeks, and directed that if arbitration is sought, the authority shall appoint an arbitrator within four weeks and decide the matter expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner sought enhanced compensation for acquisition of land under the National Highways Act, 1956. The court held that since the Act provides a specific remedy of arbitration under Section 3-G(5) for disputes regarding compensation, the writ petition is not maintainable. The court dismissed the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of arbitration. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is maintainable for challenging the adequacy of compensation determined under Section 3-G of the National Highways Act, 1956, when an alternative remedy of arbitration is available under Section 3-G(5) of the said Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy of arbitration under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 within four weeks. If such application is made, the authority shall appoint an arbitrator within four weeks and the arbitrator shall decide the matter expeditiously.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Arbitration
- Compensation
- National Highways Act
- 1956
- Writ jurisdiction
