Babulal vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, owners of land in Village Seoni, Tehsil Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, filed a writ petition challenging the compensation awarded for their land acquired for National Highway No. 149B. An award was passed on September 15, 2018. The petitioners contended that they received inadequate compensation, with higher compensation paid for smaller land extents compared to larger ones. They argued that the compensation was not assessed according to market value and applicable rules, and that the authority was not competent. They sought a similar order as passed in Writ Appeal No. 7/2019 and other connected matters, asserting that alternative remedy is not a bar in cases of apparent error, non-compliance with natural justice, or incompetent authority. The respondents, including the National Highways Authority of India and the State, opposed the petition, arguing that an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, was available to the petitioners.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. The primary reasoning was the existence of an efficacious statutory remedy available to the petitioners under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, to approach an Arbitrator for the enhancement of compensation. The Court noted that the Division Bench in Balmukund Dewangan (supra), after considering Ashutosh Agrawal (supra), affirmed the order of the writ court granting liberty to land oustees to approach the Arbitrator. The Court found that the judgment in Ashutosh Agrawal was distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Therefore, the petition was dismissed. However, the petitioners were granted liberty to approach the Arbitrator within 30 days from the receipt of the order, and the Arbitrator was directed to proceed and decide the matter objectively after due consideration of the petitioners' claims and grounds. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, given the petitioners' contentions of an apparent error on the face of the record, non-compliance with principles of natural justice, and an incompetent authority? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, and principles of writ jurisdiction). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the writ petition is maintainable because there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the principles of natural justice were not complied with, and the deciding authority was not competent. They also contended that the compensation was not assessed in accordance with the existing market value and applicable rules. They relied on the judgment in Ashutosh Agrawal and another Vs. Union of India and others, Writ Appeal No.7/2019. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents, particularly the National Highways Authority of India, argued that the petitioners have an efficacious statutory remedy to approach an Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, for enhancement of compensation. They relied on the Division Bench judgment in Balmukund Dewangan and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, Writ Appeal No.140 of 2022, which considered Ashutosh Agrawal (supra) and affirmed the liberty granted to land oustees to approach the Arbitrator.