Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:101672-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5726 of 2025 Petitioner :- Maqbool Ahmad Respondent :- Project Director National Highway Authority And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adeel Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Singh,C.S.C.,Mahendra Pratap Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard Shri Adeel Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation amount in respect of land bearing Arazi No. 1102, admeasuring 0.118 hectare, situated at Village Parsaini, Tappa-Lehada, Pargana- Haveli, Tehsil Farenda, District Maharajganj, acquired for the four-laning construction work of Sonauli-Gorakhpur section of NH-29E (New NH-24), under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition, submitting that the aforesaid land was acquired under the NHAI Act and that compensation had already been paid to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has admittedly received the compensation amount on 27.06.2024, but being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, he had approached the arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Pursuant thereto, an arbitral award was passed. 4. Aggrieved by the said award, the department has preferred an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Defective (ARPLD)- 22/2025, which is stated to be pending consideration before the competent court, filed on 07.01.2025. It is contended that once the arbitration proceedings have culminated in an award, and a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996, is already availed by the department, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, especially when the petitioner has already accepted and withdrawn the compensation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, confronted with the aforesaid factual and legal position, does not press the writ petition at this stage. He, however, seeks liberty to pursue appropriate remedies available to the petitioner under law. 6. Considering the submissions made and in view of the pendency of appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, no indulgence is warranted by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance, if any, in accordance with law. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 Anil K. Sharma Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad