29 WP No.2597.2020 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2597 OF 2020 MADHUSUDAN BABULAL BHARTIYA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Fulchad R. Tandale Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr.Deepak S. Manorkar (Through VC) Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Rajendra D. Sanap ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Date : 4th March, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by the learned Arbitrator and District Collector, Aurangabad in Arbitration Application No. 2016/LAWAD/NHAI/AURANGABAD/CR- 11, whereby, the Arbitration Application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. 3. Mr. Manorkar, the learned counsel for the respondent, raised a preliminary objection regarding the tenability of the petition. He submits that since the order was passed by respondent No. 3 under 2026:BHC-AUG:10010 29 WP No.2597.2020 -2- Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the petitioner has an alternate remedy to file the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revised award was passed under the National Highways Authority of India (Amendment) Act, 2013, while admitting that the land was acquired by the National Highway Authority, he argued that because the award was passed under the 2013 Act, the petitioner is entitled to all statutory benefits provided therein. He further invited the Court’s attention to page 39, the learned counsel noted that the award expressly mentions the Section 24 of the the 2013 Act; however, the specific benefits the petitioner is entitled to were not granted. 5. After going through the record, I find that the petitioner moved an application before the Competent Authority which is at page no. 63. The Arbitrator decided the matter by holding that the petitioner had already received all due benefits and petitioner has remedy to challenge the same under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 6. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain the petition. Therefore, writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to 29 WP No.2597.2020 -3- costs. 7. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Omkar Joshi