Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Arbitration Route for Land Acquisition Compensation Disputes
Court dismisses writ appeal, emphasizing statutory remedies over Article 226 petitions.
In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the primacy of statutory remedies over writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in cases involving land acquisition compensation disputes under the National Highways Act, 1956. The division bench comprising Justices Sri Ravi Nath Tilhari and Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam dismissed the writ appeal filed by Devabhaktuni Rama Lingeswara Rao and others, challenging the dismissal of their writ petition by a single judge.
The petitioners had sought a writ of mandamus for enhanced compensation concerning land acquired for the widening of National Highway No. 216. Initially dissatisfied with the compensation determined by the competent authority and subsequently by the appointed arbitrator, the petitioners approached the High Court, arguing that the compensation was unjustly low and misclassified their lands as agricultural instead of non-agricultural.
The learned single judge had dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioners to pursue remedies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The judge noted that the dispute involved complex factual determinations unsuitable for adjudication under Article 226. The petitioners, in their appeal, contended that the arbitration process violated principles of natural justice and their fundamental rights under Article 14.
However, the division bench, after scrutinizing the submissions and statutory provisions, upheld the single judge's decision. The court clarified that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, provides a comprehensive framework for challenging arbitral awards under Section 34, which includes grounds for setting aside awards and appeal provisions under Section 37. The bench emphasized that the applicability of the Arbitration Act is explicitly sanctioned by Section 3G(6) of the National Highways Act, 1956, negating any conflict between the special and general statutes.
The judgment underscores the court's reluctance to interfere with arbitration proceedings when statutory remedies are available, unless exceptional circumstances warrant such intervention. It further reiterates the doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies, cautioning against bypassing structured legal pathways without compelling justification.
The petitioners are now expected to pursue their challenge to the arbitrator's award through the avenues provided by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, marking a pivotal reaffirmation of legislative frameworks governing land acquisition compensations.
Bottom Line:
Compensation for land acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956 - Remedy lies under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for challenging the arbitrator's award - Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not appropriate when statutory alternative remedies are available.
Statutory provision(s): National Highways Act, 1956 Section 3G(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 34, Constitution of India, Article 226
