The court emphasized a liberal approach to condoning delays in land acquisition cases, allowing petitions despite alternative remedies being available.

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for respondents. By consent of the parties matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

3. Case of the petitioners is that they have file reference by Arbitration Case No. 54/ARB/2023, Mouza Bharathwada, T.S. No.12, Tahsil Nagpur, before the respondent No.2, under Section 3- G (5) of the National Highways Act (‘N.H. Act’ for brevity), for arbitration and enhancement of compensation granted in Land Acquisition Case No. 17/A-65/2015-16, the order dated 23/08/2017, in respect of Survey No. 134 area 0.5800 H.R. of village Bharatwada. The reference was filed along with application for condonation of delay. The petitioners challenge the order of acquisition by the respondent No. 4, for the construction of outer ring road around Nagpur City Building, maintained, management and operation of National Highway on the stretch of land from 7.500 km to 61.800 km (Jamtha, Gondkhiri, Chincholi, Bharatwada, Nara, Bhilgaon, Pawangaon, Dhargaon Section), in Nagpur District, under the provisions of N.H. Act. The respondent No.4, determined the compensation under Section 3-G of the Act. As lower rates are given for acquired land, he received the compensation under the protest and decide to file this application for determination of value of the agriculture land. In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioners explained to cause 330 days of delay and submitted that due to pandemic and having no knowledge about the disposal of a reference, wherein for the same village Bharatwada, the compensation has been enhanced and after getting the knowledge, filed the reference with application for condonation of delay. The said application was rejected on 11/06/2024, observing that the reasons given in applications were not satisfactory. The said order is under challenge in the present petition.

4. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 raised preliminary objection that there is remedy available to the petitioner under Arbitration and Conciliation Act(‘A and C Act’ for brevity). It is submitted that present petition concerns enhancement of compensation for land acquired towards the building, operation and maintenance of National Highway, which is governed by N.H. Act. It is submitted that the petitioners had filed an application under Section 3-G(5) of the said Act for enhancement of compensation which was subsequently rejected by the respondent No. 2, acting as the Arbitrator and was being governed by the provisions of N.H. Act, 1956, and A and C Act, 1996. Thus, the order forming subject matter of the present petition having been passed during the course of arbitration proceedings, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the District Court of competent jurisdiction under Section 34 of the A and C Act. It is further submitted that the petitioners have an alternate and efficacious remedy under the relevant Act which has not been availed and as such, present petition is not maintainable under the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

5. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 relied on judgment in SBP and Company versus Patel Engineering Limited, (2005) 8 SCC 618, wherein, Seven Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the scope of judicial intervention by writ courts in arbitral proceedings was pleased to lay down certain principles and hold as follows :

“(vi) Once the matter reaches the arbitral tribunal or the sole arbitrator, the High Court would not interfere with orders passed by the arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal during the course of the arbitration proceedings and the parties could approach the court only in terms of section 37 of the Act or in terms of section 34 of the Act."

The Hon'ble Court in para 44 and 45 of its judgement was also pleased to hold that:

"It is seen that some High Courts have proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an arbitral tribunal during arbi