JUDGMENT

P. R. Ramachandra Menon, C.J. - (A) Whether the 'minimum value', if any, stipulated in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, 'the Stamp Act') or the relevant Rules/Guidelines stipulated for fixing stamp duty in respect of the conveyance to be registered reflects the 'actual market value' to be paid to a land owner, pursuant to the compulsory acquisition of his property ?

(b) In respect of an acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the N.H. Act'), read with the relevant provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the 'Act, 2013'), can the market value of the property be fixed simply with reference to the extent/area of land owned by the land owner, as adopted by the Respondents, giving paltry compensation on the basis of the higher extent/area of the land (which is lesser than the compensation in respect of the adjoining lands) resulting in payment of higher compensation to the land owner having lesser extent ?

(c) Does the Scheme of either the N.H. Act or the Act, 2013 envisage a course of action detrimental to the land owner having higher extent of land, than the land owner having exactly similar land situated nearby, but of lesser extent, in turn, providing for unlawful gain to the requisitioning authority / acquisitioning authority ?

(d) Is Clause 3' of Annexure-P/16 Guidelines stipulating for payment of compensation with reference to the extent of land owned by a person is correct and sustainable or if the stipulation therein has been correctly interpreted and applied by the Competent Authority while passing Annexure-P/14 award ?

(e) Can the payment of Rs. 1 crore for 999 sq.mt. of land to one land owner and payment of just Rs. 25 lakhs for a land owner having property of 1001 sq.m. (both exactly identical and of equal importance and potential value situated side by side) be justified, with reference to the area/extent of Rule/Guidelines applied by the Competent Authority; when it stipulates that property having area/extent upto 1000 sq.mts. will be given full market value and only 25% of the market value for land having area/extent of more than 1000 sq.mts. ?

(f) If there is patent arbitrariness in the 'decision making process' and the decision taken, should the party be relegated to the remedy by way of Arbitration and whether the course pursued by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be justified ; more so, where there is no disputed question of fact ?

(g) Is the alternate remedy a bar of law, or rule of convenience ?

(h) What is the Scheme of the N.H Act and does it take away or lessen the right of the land owner to get full compensation payable to him under the 'Act, 2013', on compulsory acquisition of land ?

These are some of the important points formulated to be considered and answered in these appeals.

2. The appeals arise from a common judgment dated 18.09.2018 passed by a learned Judge of this Court declining to interfere with the course of action pursued by the Competent Authority as to fixation of compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition of land, and to set aside paragraph 3 of "Praroop-I" of the Circle Rate Guidelines fixed by the Collector vide Annexure-P/16. Writ Appeal No. 07/2019 arising from Writ Petition (C) No.3154 is treated as the lead case and parties and proceedings are referred to, as given therein, except to the extent where it is separately mentioned, based on the context.

3. We heard Shri Amit S. Agrawal, the learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned Deputy Advocate General on behalf of the Competent Authority/State and Shri Navin Shukla, learned counsel for the National Highways Authority.

4. The crux of the grievance projected by the Appellants is with regard to sustainability of the Award granting only a sum of Rs.16,97,430/- in respect of 1370 sq.mt.