The High Court will not entertain a writ petition if an adequate alternative remedy exists, and the reassessment of compensation under the Railways Act was upheld as valid.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.05.2019 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer (for short “the Arbitrator”) as also the award dated 10.07.2019 passed by the Competent Authority cum the Sub-Divisional Officer, Beawar, District Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as “the Competent Authority”) under the Railways Act, 1989 (for brevity “the Act of 1989”).

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the land acquisition proceeding under Chapter IV-A of the Act of 1989 came to be initiated qua the subject land by issuance of a notification dated 16.03.2009 under Section 20-A (1) of the Act of 1989. Thereafter, the notification dated 21.01.2010 under Section 20-E (1) of the Act of 1989 was published. The Competent Authority, vide its award dated 10.03.2011, assessed the compensation of Rs. 47,58,247/- payable to the respondents No.3 and 4, the Khatedars of the subject land. The award was assailed by the respondents No.3 and 4 under Section 20-F (6) of the Act of 1989 before the Arbitrator who, vide its judgment dated 07.09.2012, held that the compensation was payable Rs. 700 per sq. ft. and the matter was remanded back to the Competent Authority for reassessment of the compensation amount as also to give his decision on the claim of the respondents No.3 & 4 about the subject property having been leased Rs. 2,00,000/- per month for marriage ceremonies. The judgment was assailed by the petitioner by way of a Civil Miscellaneous Application No.33/2012 (221/2012) filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity “the Act of 1996”). The learned Additional District Judge No.1, Ajmer (for brevity “the learned District Court”) vide its judgment dated 22.12.2016, allowed the objection application, quashed and set aside the judgment dated 07.09.2012 passed by the Arbitrator and remanded the matter back to him to decide it afresh after affording both the parties an opportunity of hearing. The judgment dated 22.12.2016 was assailed by the respondents No.3 & 4 by way of SB Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1065/2017 before this Court which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 12.09.2018. While allowing the appeal, the judgment dated 22.12.2016 was quashed and set aside and it was observed that in case, the respondent No.1 (petitioner herein) feels aggrieved by the order of the Competent Authority regarding calculation and lease amount, it will be open to it to raise objections according to law. A petition for special leave to appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 12.09.2018 came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 05.03.2019. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application before the Arbitrator under Section 151 CPC praying therein for staying the proceeding pending before the Competent Authority pursuant to judgment dated 07.09.2012 inasmuch as a review petition preferred by it against the judgment dated 12.09.2018 was subjudice before this Court. The application came to be dismissed by the Arbitrator vide its order dated 29.05.2019 and the Competent Authority recalculated the amount of compensation payable to the respondents No.3 & 4 vide its order dated 12.07.2019, which are subject-matter of challenge in the writ petition.

3. Assailing the orders impugned, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-Shri K.K. Sharma, would submit that the Competent Authority has failed to appreciate that since, the subject land was not being used for commercial purpose, compensation could not have been assessed Rs. 700/- per sq. ft. applicable for the commercial land. He submits that even otherwise, in absence of a specific finding that the entire land was put to commercial use, assessment of the compensation applying the commercial rate for the entire piece of land is bad in law. Referring to the findings recorded by the learned District Court in its judgment dated 22.12.2016 while allowing the objection raised by the petitioner unde