Petitioners must challenge arbitral awards under statutory provisions rather than via writ petitions; failure to do so negates judicial review under Article 226.

J U D G M E N T

The prayers in the WP(C).No.36560 of 2018 are as follows.

“i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd and 4^th respondents to grant the benefit of enhanced compensation to the petitioners also for their 16.30 Ares of property acquired vide LAC No.12/2013 on the basis of Ext.P4 orders and as requested in Ext.P5 representation and to disburse the same accordingly in the interest of justice;

ii. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the applicability of Ext.P3 award in granting enhanced compensation to the petitioner at 15% excess alone as being arbitrary, illegal unjust and two meagre while considering the amount granted in Ext.P4 award and direct the respondents 2 to 4 to grant the same compensation envisaged in Ext.P4 to the petitioners also without infringement of their rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and sought for vide Ext.P5 representation; and

iii. To grant such other and further reliefs deemed fit to be granted by this Honourable Court in the facts and circumstances of the above case; and

iv. To allow the costs of this proceedings. ”

2. The prayers in the WP(C).No.36569 of 2018 are as follows.

“i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd and 4^th respondents to grant the benefit of enhanced compensation to the petitioner also for her 8.51(5.99+2.52) Ares of property acquired vide LAC No.175 & 176/2013 on the basis of Ext.P4 orders and as requested in Ext.P5 representation and to disburse the same accordingly in the interest of justice;

ii. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the applicability of Ext.P3 award in granting enhanced compensation to the petitioner at 15% excess alone as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust and two meagre while considering the amount granted in Ext.P4 award and direct the respondents 2 to 4 to grant the same compensation envisaged in Ext.P4 to the petitioners also without infringement of their rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and sought for vide Ext.P5 representation; and

iii. To grant such other and further reliefs deemed fit to be granted by this Honourable Court in the facts and circumstances of the above case; and

iv. To allow the costs of this proceedings. ”

3. The prayers in the WP(C).No.37563 of 2018 are as follows.

“i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd and 4^th respondents to grant the benefit of enhanced compensation to the petitioners also for her 2 Ares of property acquired vide LAC No.151/2013 on the basis of Ext.P4 orders and as requested in Ext.P5 representation and to disburse the same accordingly in the interest of justice;

ii. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the applicability of Ext.P3 award in granting enhanced compensation to the petitioner at 15% excess alone as being arbitrary, illegal unjust and two meagre while considering the amount granted in Ext.P4 award and direct the respondents 2 to 4 to grant the same compensation envisaged in Ext.P4 to the petitioners also without infringement of her rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and sought for vide Ext.P5 representation; and

iii. To grant such other and further reliefs deemed fit to be granted by this Honourable Court in the facts and circumstances of the above case; and

iv. To allow the costs of this proceedings. ”

4. As these cases give rise to common and interrelated issues, thes