IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.32305 of 2025 Dated: 10.02.2026 Between:

Sri Gaddam Shankaraiah and three others …Petitioners AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Land Acquisition Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing Memo vide R.C.No.C2/367/2025 dated 07.04.2025, whereby the petition filed under Section 73 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for redetermination of compensation was rejected, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents to enhance the compensation on par with the award passed in Appeal No.C2/192/2021-24 & 25 dated 16.01.2025.

2. Heard Sri Dinesh Reddy Malli Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Madishetty Ramu, learned Standing Counsel for National Highway Authority of India, for respondent No.5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ lands were acquired for extension of National Highway No.363. He submits that the compensation awarded was lesser than that granted to other similarly situated land owners under the same project. He submits that the petitioners filed a petition under Section 73 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 seeking respondent-determination of compensation based on the award passed in Appeal No.C2/192/2021-24 & 25, dated 16.01.2025 but respondent No.2 rejected the same on the ground of limitation. He submits that the said rejection is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI submits that, in matters relating to determination or re- determination of compensation under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, the statute provides a complete mechanism.

He submits that under Section 3G(5) of the said Act, an aggrieved party has to approach the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government and any challenge to the award of the Arbitrator lies under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. He further submits that, in similar circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh, in W.P. No.25406 of 2005, held that a writ petition is not maintainable and liberty was granted to the petitioner therein to approach the Civil Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the issue relates to determination/redetermination of compensation under the provisions governing acquisition for National Highways. In W.P. No.25406 of 2005, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in similar circumstances, held that when the statute provides a specific remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and a further remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. It is a settled principle of law that when an effective alternative statutory remedy is available, ordinarily a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy available under law, if so advised. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions