2025:JHHC:10883 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 7630 of 2023 --- Ramesh Ram, son of Suneshwar Ram, resident of Village- Mandohar, P.O.- Marwaniya, P.S.- Ramna, District- Garhwa … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator, National Highways Authority of India, Garhwa 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Garhwa 5. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Garhwa 6. The Circle Officer, Ramna, District- Garhwa 7. The Regional Officer, NHAI, Ranchi 8. The Project Director, NHAI, Garhwa …. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Anshuman Mishra, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 6 : Mrs. Sahlini Shahdeo, A.C. to S.C.(L&C)-I For the Resp. Nos. 7 & 8 : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate Order No. 06 Dated: 09.04.2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to correct the designation of the respondent no. 3 as “The Additional Collector-cum-Arbitrator, National Highways Authority of India, Garhwa” in course of the day. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 3 to enhance the amount of compensation from Rs.12,638/- to Rs.3,00,000/- per decimal in favour of the petitioner with penal interest from the date of acquisition of the land appertaining to Mouza-Mandohar, Thana No. 97 under Khata No. 79, Plot No. 49 measuring an area of 0.16270 acre as the aforesaid land has been acquired by the respondent authorities for widening of NH-75 (Khajuri to 2025:JHHC:10883 2 Wydhamganj Section). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 3 to pass fresh order and prepare a new Award irrespective of the fact that the matter has been referred to the respondent no. 5 – the District Land Acquisition Officer, Garhwa. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the petitioner has challenged the order/award passed by the respondent no. 3, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has an alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, “the Act, 1996”) against the said order/award. Hence, the present writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. 4. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to take alternative/efficacious/statutory recourse under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 against the said order/award passed by the respondent no. 3. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable with aforesaid liberty. Ritesh/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.)