AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vide order dated 21.08.2026 passed by this Court, petitioner Puja Lalwani was granted time to file appropriate application for engaging another advocate as her previous counsel was not interested to represent the case.
Pursuant thereto, petitioner has filed I.A. No.1/2026, application seeking permission to appear, argue and prosecute the matter as party in person.
On due consideration, the said application is allowed and Ms. Puja Lalwani is permitted to appear, argue and prosecute the matter as petitioner in person.
This Writ Petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“10.1.That, this Hon'ble may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order, direction and direct the respondent to re-determined the award by applying the multiplication factor of TWO as per the division bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (C) no. 1961/2018 and Rev. P. no. 10/2019 Union of India Vs. Mahadev Gond dated 24.06.2019.
10.2.That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate.
In the writ petition, it has been pleaded by the petitioner that respondents had issued a notification under the provision of National Highways Act and thereafter the final award was passed on 01.06.2018. However, the respondents authorities failed to performed their duties as per the Section 26 of the Right To Fair Compensation And Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 read with schedule First of the Act of 2013, which provides for the appropriate multiplication factor to be included in the award. It has also been pleaded that final award as per the provisions of Act, 2013 shall include the four essential ingredients (i) market value (ii) rate of interest (iii) multiplication factor (iv) solatium and in the instant case the respondents have failed to apply the multiplication factor of TWO as per the notification dated 02.05.2019.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-NHAI at the outset submits that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 to redress her grievance.
Petitioner in person in view of the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, submits that she may be permitted to avail the said remedy in accordance with law.
In a case with similar background, this Court in WA No.140 of 2022 and other connected matters while disposing the said appeal on 10.12.2024 took notice of the following questions posed by this Court in WA No.07/2019 and other connected matters {Ashutosh Agrawal and Another vs. Union of India and Others}:-
(f)If there is patent arbitrariness in the ‘decision making process’ and the decision taken, should the party be relegated to the remedy by way of Arbitration and whether the course pursued by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be justified; more so, where there is no disputed question of fact ?
(g)Is the alternate remedy a bar of law, or rule of convenience ?”
The Division Bench of this Court in para 17 held as under:-
17.After hearing both the sides and also in view of the precedents cited from both the sides, we do not have any doubt to hold that power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is even wider of the power of the Apex Court under Article 32 cannot be curtailed by any statute. The existence of alternate remedy is more a 'rule of convenience' and the parties would be relegated to pursue such remedy, under normal circumstances. But if special circumstances are involved or whether the proceeding under challenge is per se arbitrary and illegal or if it has resulted in total miscarriage of justice, the discretionary power vested in this Court to have the matter considered under Article 226 is always there, to be invoked. In view of the particular nature of challenge raised and the factual position demonstrated by the Appellants, resulting in payment of higher compensation to an adjoining / identical property having a lesser extent/area while awarding only a lower amount to the Appellants (merely for the reason that the property involved is having a higher extent) cannot but be held as an arbitrary exercise and we find it appropriate to have it considered by this Court. The question is answered in favour of the Appellants and against the Respondents.”
The Division Bench of this Court in WA No.140 of 2022 held that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court as even otherwise, learned Single Judge has observed that subject to the petitioners approaching the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Govt. in this regard within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Arbitrator notified shall proceed and decide the matter objectively after due consideration of the claim of petitioners and the grounds raised by them seeking for quashment of the award to the extent of the compensation quantified and the multiplier factor taken into consideration for computation of compensation.
In view of the submissions made by the parties, and the findings arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government in this regard as per Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Arbitrator notified shall proceed and decide the matter objectively after due consideration of the claim of petitioner and the grounds raised by her seeking for quashment of the award to the extent of the compensation quantified and the multiplier factor to be taken into consideration for computation of compensation. The said exercise be done by the Arbitrator within a period of 6 months from the date the petitioner makes her appearance before him.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. In the event the petitioner avails the aforesaid remedy, the competent authority/Arbitrator shall consider and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.