The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available, and the appropriate court for dispute resolution is the District Court.

ORDER

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - The hearing of the case was held through videoconferencing on account of restricted functioning of the Courts.

1. By this order, three civil writ petitions i.e CWP-10182-2021, 10184-2021 and 10187-2021 shall stand disposed of.

2. The relief sought in these three writ petitions is identical. Learned counsel representing the petitioner in all the three writ petitions is same and states that these writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.

3. For convenience, the facts are being noticed from CWP-10182-2021. The petitioners in the various writ petitions were owners of various pieces of land, which were acquired by the Central Government under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1956'). After the competent authority had determined the amount of compensation for the land acquired, they applied to the Central Government for appointment of an Arbitrator as the compensation determined by the competent authority was not acceptable. The Arbitrator was not only appointed but on 28.10.2010 the award has already been passed. The petitioners pray for a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to release the payment as per the award passed by the Arbitrator.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and with his able assistance perused the paper book. Learned counsel representing the petitioners contends that as per sub-section 6 of Section 3H, where the amount determined by the Arbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, awarded by the Arbitrator, is required to be deposited by the Central Government with the competent authority. He, hence, contends that since the Central Government has failed to follow the statutory mandate, therefore, a writ in the nature of Mandamus is required to be issued. He, while relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'National Highways Authority of India vs. Sayedabad Tea Company Limited and others' 2019 SCC online SC 1102, contends that the Act of 1956 is a complete Code and therefore, the application of general law would stand impliedly excluded. He has drawn the attention of the Court to para 18 and 19 of the judgment which are extracted as under:-

"18. After analysing the scheme, it can be assumed that the legislature intended the 1956 Act to act as a complete code in itself for the purpose of acquisition until culmination including disbursement and for settlement of disputes and this conclusion is further strengthened in view of Section 3-J of the Act which eliminates the application of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to an acquisition under the 1956 Act.

19. It is settled principles of law that when the special law sets out a self-contained code, the application of general law would impliedly be excluded. In the instant case, the scheme of the 1956 Act being a special law enacted for the purpose and for appointment of an arbitrator by the Central Government under Section 3-G (5) of the 1956 Act and sub-section (6) of Section 3-G itself clarifies that subject to the provisions of the 1956 Act, the provisions of the 1996 Act shall apply to every arbitration obviously to the extent where the 1956 Act is silent, the arbitrator may take recourse in adjudicating the dispute invoking the provisions of the 1996 Act for the limited purpose. But so far as the appointment of an arbitrator is concerned, the power being exclusively vested with the Central Government as envisaged under sub-section (5) of Section 3-G of the 1956 Act, Section 11 of the 1996 Act has no application."

He further relies upon the order passed in CWP-13772-2020 dated 03.12.2020 issuing noticing of motion.

6. This Bench has considered the submission and proceeds to analyze the same. Under the Act of 1956, the Parliament incorporated certain enabling provisions for acquisition of the land for building national highway by the Act no.1