Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100777-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12848 of 2025 Petitioner :- Santosh Chaubey and 3 others Respondent :- Union of India and 4 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Vaibhav Tripathi Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard Shri Rakesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Vaibhav Tripathi, learned counsel for Union of India and Shri Hare Ram, learned counsel for National Highway Authority of India. 2. The instant writ petition is preferred for direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25.10.2024 passed by Prescribed Authority/Chief Revenue Officer, Ghazipur (respondent no.3). Further request has been made to issue direction to the respondent no.3 to pay the balance amount of total compensation amount of Rs.47,26,930/- and to decide the representation dated 05.04.2025 within stipulated time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the National Highway Authority of India has acquired the land in question for constructing National Highway No.124-D from Mardah-Saidpur and the award has been passed on 27.12.2023. Initially, the amount towards the compensation in lieu of the acquired land had been fixed at Rs.47,26,930/-. After completing all the formalities, the respondent no.3 had issued a notice on 02.03.2024 for payment of Rs.47,26,930/- in pursuance of the award dated 27.12.2023 and an amount of Rs.42,54,237/- has also been paid. He submits that in arbitrary manner, the amount of Rs.42,54,237/- has been reduced to the tune of Rs.30,76,876/- by way of amended award, thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant writ petition on two fold submissions; (i) the National Highway Authority Act, 1956 (in short, Act, 1956) is a self-contained Act, and (ii) in case, the petitioners are aggrieved with the revised compensation, they have remedy to move an application under Section 3-G (5) of the Act, 1956 to determine the amount by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. As the efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, therefore, the present petition is devoid of merits. 5. Based on aforesaid deliberations this Court is of the view as the petitioners have efficacious alternative remedy under the Act, 1956 and preferred the instant petition without availing the same. Thus, no indulgence is warranted by this Court. The petitioners are set at liberty to avail the statutory remedy to approach the learned Arbitrator to address their grievances, who shall pass an appropriate order at the earliest without causing any delay. 6. Considering the factual situation and the dispute, we find that in case the petitioners approach to the learned Arbitrator in accordance with law within two weeks from today, we hope and trust that the same would be adverted strictly in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 RKP Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad