The exclusive remedy to challenge an arbitral award under the National Highways Act is by application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act; writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable for such challenges.

ORDER

The Writ petition has been filed challenging the Arbitral Award nd passed by the 2 respondent herein who is the Statutory Arbitrator under the National Highways Act.

2. The facts are briefly set out herein below:-

3. The petitioner is the owner of an extent of 5080 sq.mt. in S.No.540/1B in Karagathahalli Village, Palacode Taluk, Dharamapuri st District. The 1 respondent/National Highways Authority had acquired the said extent of land for the purpose of laying N.H-844-Hosur-Rayakottai- Dharmapuri Section-4 lane.

4. Ultimately, the 3rd respondent had awarded a compensation of a sum of Rs.1,29,49,753/- for the acquisition of the petitioner's land. Dissatisfied with the said compensation, the petitioner had preferred an Arbitration Petition under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act nd nd before the 2 respondent. The 2 respondent vide his order dated 11.03.2023 had enhanced the compensation from a sum of Rs.1,29,49,753/- to a sum of Rs.1,97,27,713.75/-. Challenging this order, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked.

5. When the matter had come up for admission this Court had raised the issue of maintainability of the Writ Petition since under the provisions of the National Highways Act, the award passed by the Statutory Arbitrator is subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and therefore the remedy available to the petitioner is only to move an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the competent Civil Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner had taken time to make his submission on the ground of maintainability.

6. Today, when the matter came up, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court has jurisdiction as it is the property right of the petitioner that has been affected and therefore a violation of Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India. He would also submit that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers upon the Court a right to consider the said petition for enhancement. He would further argue that since the award was passed on 11.01.2022 and the time for filing a Section 34 Application has lapsed, the petitioner would be left without any recourse if this Court were to reject the Writ Petition.

7. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2022) 7 SCC 508 - Sukh Dutt Ratra and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others to support his argument that right against deprivation of the property continues to be a Constitution right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and fetter without due process of law or authorization of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case wa considering two issues:-

(i) Whether the State on the ground of delay and laches can evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom private property has been expropriated?

(ii) Whether the order of the High Court that matter involved disputed questions of law and fact for determination on starting point of limitation, which could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings therefore, disposing of writ petition seeking compensation for subject land or initiation of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , with liberty to institute a civil suit, can be sustained?

That was a case where the State had laid a road in the petitioner's property without resorting to acquisition proce