APHC010237362018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No.10444 OF 2018 Between: P.T.Jagannathan, S/o P.T.Ramanujam Aged about 48yrs, Occ:Business, R/o H.No.7-7-9, Magunta Layout 13th Cross road, SPSR Nellore. ...Petitioner AND 1. The Arbitrator and District Collector, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Revenue Mr.S.S.Varma, Counsel for NHAI The Court made the following ORDER: The present writ petition is filed challenging the Proceedings dated 04.11.2017 passed by the respondent No.1, on the ground that the same is in violation of principles of natural justice and as such the proceedings are liable to be set aside. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia submits that the petitioner and one Mr.Namala Vasanth Kumar are the owners of the agricultural land of an extent of Acs.2.86½ cents in Survey Nos.103/1A and 10/2 of South Gandavaram Village and the respondent No.2 collected requisite charges and issued Proceedings dated 12.8.2009 (Ex.P.3) converting the same into non-agricultural land. He submits that 2 for the purpose of widening the National Highway, a part of the said land was acquired and feeling dissatisfied with the compensation fixed by the Competent Authority, the petitioner approached the respondent No.1 in terms of Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956. He submits that along with the application/appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, the petitioner filed supporting documents including those pertaining to land conversion etc., and the respondent No.1 vide Proceedings dated 04.11.2017 rejected the claim for enhancement on the premise that the petitioner has not produced any supporting documents for enhancement of the claim, which is contrary to record. He submits that in the normal circumstances, the petitioner has a remedy under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e., by way of a petition under Section 34 of the said Act. However, as there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the present writ petition is filed. He, therefore, submits that the impugned proceedings may be set aside and the matter be remanded for fresh enquiry, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. 3. The respondents have not filed their counter affidavits. However, Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel for N.H.A.I., sought to sustain the impugned proceedings contending that as there is an effective alternative remedy, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Be that as it may. 4. As per the directions of this Court, the record pertaining to the impugned proceedings was produced and as verified from the same, it contains the documents submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No.1. This aspect was also not denied by the learned counsel 3 representing the respondents. Thus, it is clear that though the documents are produced before the respondent No.1, the same were overlooked and the impugned proceedings were passed as if no documents are produced by the petitioner. 5. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in M/s.Electrosteel Castings Limited vs. Union of India1, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court had an occasion to deal with the order passed by the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act. Similar contentions were raised with regard to violation of principles of natural justice. One of the contentions advanced was that no notice was issued by the Arbitrator before rejecting the application of the petitioner therein on the ground of limitation and the same amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and as such the writ petition was maintainable. The learned Judge placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharampal Satyapal Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise2 set aside the order impugned in the writ petition and remanded the matter to the learned Arbitrator. 6. As noted above, in the present case, it is not in dispute that the record discloses the submission of the documents by the petitioner. In such an event, non-consideration of the documents amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and the alternative remedy is not a bar for entertaining the writ petition. 1 W.P.No.7136 of 2024, dated 30.8.2025 2 (2015) 8 SCC 519 4 7. In Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., vs. Essar Oil Ltd 3., the learned Division Bench, while referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sathyanarayana Bros. (P) Limited vs. T.N.Water Supply and Drainage Board4 where in it was emphasized that the arbitrator while making the award cannot ignore the documents relevant to determine the controversy so as to render a just and fair decision, opined that non- consideration of the documents would amount to violation of principles of natural justice, etc. 8. For the afore-said reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent No.1 for consideration of the petitioner’s case afresh, by examining the documents as also after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J December 03, 2025 vasu 3 2005 (1) ALD 421 (DB) 4 (2004) 5 SCC 319