The main legal point established in the judgment is that landowners have the right to seek enhancement of land compensation before the statutory Arbitrator, and recourse to the writ court cannot be made if there is an efficacious and alternative remedy available.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J. - This order shall dispose of above-captioned two writ petitions as the point in issue is common. For the sake of disposal, CWP-2879-2018 is being treated as the lead case.

2. The present writ petition challenges the award dated 04.08.2016 qua the petitioner passed by the Competent Authority, Land Acquisition/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ludhiana (West) (P8) being illegal, arbitrary, primarily on the ground that the land which has been acquired of the petitioner under the National Highways Act, 1956 was falling within the urban area of the Municipal Council, Samrala. It is the case of the petitioners that they have filed objections under Section 3-C of the 1956 Act before the Competent Authority who vide order dated 04.08.2016 (P7) assessed the market value @ Rs. 50,42,400/- per acre for village Ladhran Hadbast No. 86, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. It is the case of the petitioner that another award was passed qua the land included within the Municipal boundaries of MC Samrala wherein the amount of compensation was assessed @ Rs. 97,36,480/- per acre for chahi land and Rs. 1,44,45,706/- for gair mumkin land. In such circumstances the amount of compensation as such awarded has been challenged.

3. A perusal of the award would show that for village Ladhran, the land of the petitioner was shown as agriculture in column No. 7. Various types of land have also been shown having gair mumkin plinth, house, petroleum pump, service station, school etc. On the basis of rate fixed as such vide the award, different amounts have been fixed for chahi @ Rs. 50,42,400/- per acre and for gair mumkin @ Rs. 96 lakhs. Similarly, various other amounts have been awarded for other villages also as per the chart given below:-

4. Thus it is apparent that for gair murnkin the amount varies for different villages in the revenue estates.

5. The stand of the official respondents No. 3 in the preliminary submission also is that the petitioners have right to file petition before the Arbitrator appointed under the 1956 Act for enhancement of land compensation apart from the fact that the calculation of rate of compensation has been done according to Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It has been further averred that calculation of the price of land for acquisition is done on the basis of actual sale transaction in the village concerned.

6. In the replication, para 3 has not been specifically denied and thus it is apparent that even the petitioners are aware that they have got an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal before the statutory Arbitrator.

7. Respondent No. 2 in its reply has also taken the same plea and referred to the judgment of this Court in CWP No. 29431 of 2017 Phool Singh v. National Highway Authority of India & Ors. decided on 12.03.2018. The decision as such pertained to the issues on claim of solatium and interest which had been preferred and in similar circumstances awards of the LAC had been challenged before this Court. It was noticed that the landowners in that set of cases had earlier also preferred the applications before statutory Arbitrator and also gone to the Additional District Judge and thereafter approached the writ Court. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

"Thus, in view of the alternative remedy as such available, it is always open to the