IIj APHC010387262025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESF^-S> AT AMARAVATI * H FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARK AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAIVL WRIT APPEAL NO: 859 OF 2025 ^ Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order dated 09-05-2025 in WP No. 10641 of 2022 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. Devabhaktuni Rama Lingeswara Rao, S/o Late Sambaiah, Aged about 77 years, Occ. Retd. Employee, R/o 3-8-169, Road No.5, Chandrapuri Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad - 500074. 2. Devabhaktuni Rama Koteswara Rao, S/o Late Sambaiah, Aged about 67 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o 3-8-115, RoadNo.5, Chandrapuri Colony, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad - 500074. 3. Devabhaktuni Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Devabhaktuni Shankara Rao, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Flat No.503, Green Leaves Apartments, Hariharapuram Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad -' 500070. 4. Ravella Raghunath Babu,, S/o Ravella Raja Gopala Rao, Aged about 68 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Potiuri Residency, Flat No.204, 0pp. Police Station, Kamaiah Thopu, Vijayawada - 520007, NTR Distrit. A.P. fr^ 5. Korrapati Kanyakumari, W/o Late Korrapati Srinivasa Rao, Aged about 83 years, Occ.Household, R/o 8-72, Kaptanupalem, Pedaprolu Village, Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District. A.P. 6. Sabbineni Bose,, S/o Venkata Ramaiah, Agriculture, R/o D.No.3-52, Dr. Suri Bazar, Mandal, Krishna District. A.P. 7. Ravi Babu Rao,, S/o Venkata Subbaiah Agriculture, C/o Ravi Vasantha Rao, Venkatapuram Village Mandal, Krishna District.A.P. 8. Mavuluri Krishna Kumari,, W/o Late Mavuluri Yedukondalu 52 years, Occ. Household, Mandal, Krishna District. A.P. Aged about 67 years, Occ. Challapalli Village and Aged about 67 years, Occ. Mopidevi Aged about R/o D.No.9-71, Challapalli Village and ...Petitioners^ AND 1. The Union Of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Highways, New Delhi. 2. National Highway Authority of India Ltd, f NHDP IVPIV, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, A.P. 3. The Competent Authority LA and Joint Collector at Machilipatnam. A.P. 4. The Arbitrator and District Collector A.P. Road, Transport and Rep. by its Project Director, Krishna District, Office Krishna District, at Machilipatnam. ...Respondents'^ iA NO: 1 OF 7()9Pi Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of fhe petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order dated 09-05-2025 passed in WP No. 10641 of 2022 by compensation to the Appellants as per the value specified in the Guideline Register, particularly direct the Respondents to award market on the Appellants land, namely, Rs.600 per sq.yard for land, Rs.810 per sq. ft for buildings of Appellants 1 to 5, and Rs.3,000 per sq. yard for land of Appellants 6 to 8, based on the Market Value Certificates issued by the Sub- Registrar, Challapalli, as on the date of the notification, by applying the multiple factor of 2.0 instead of 1.2^ along with all statutory benefits including solatium and interest under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CHANDRASEKHARA RAO L T ^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI}_ Counsel for the Respondent No.3: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE ^ The Court made the following JUDGMENT 4; THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO.859/2025 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri L.T.Chandrasekhara Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Akhil Krishnan, learned counsel representing Sri nd S.S.Varma, learned Standing Counsel for the 2 respondent- National Highway Authority of India Ltd. (NHAI) and Ms.Kotharu Vijayeswari, learned counsel for the 3'^ respondent. 2. The writ appellants are the writ petitioners in W.P.No.10641 of 2022. The writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, inter alia for grant of compensation for the land acquired as also for the structures, under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013(in short ‘the Act, 2013) raising the grievance that the amount of compensation determined was on the lower side and not according to law. nd 3. The National Highway Authority of India Ltd(NHAI), the 2 respondent, issued a Notification dated 13.01.2016 under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short ‘the Act, 1956), to acquire the petitioners’ lands together with the constructions, for the V" 2 # ■\ purpose of widening of National Highway No.216, passing through Pedaprolu Village of Mopidevi Mandal, Krishna District. Notification under Section 3D was published on 26.08.2016, to which the petitioners filed the objections, which were, however, rejected by the competent authority vide proceedings in Rc.GI.2488/2015 dated 28.04.2016. Thereafter, a notice dated 14.12.2016 was issued under Section 3G(3) of the Act, 1956, for determination of the amount as compensation and the award was passed thereafter, on 31.03.2017 by the competent authority. Not being satisfied with the award, the petitioners approached the 4^'" respondent, the Arbitrator and the District Collector, Krishna District (Land Acquisition and Joint Collector) under Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956. The 4 the Arbitrator, vide the orders dated 11.01.2019 and 30.11.2020 dismissed the arbitration petitions for enhancement compensation. th respondent. of the 4. Challenging the aforesaid orders, the Writ Petition No. 10641 of 2022 was filed by the writ appellants. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, not being inclined to entertain the same but observed that the petitioners were at liberty to take recourse of law as per Section 3G of the Act, 5. 1 ifc, 1956 by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned Single Judge observed that the grievance of the petitioners with respect to the determination of compensation as per their submission on the lower side treating the subject lands and agricultural lands instead of non-agricultural lands revolved around the classification of the subject lands and being disputed questions of fact, to determine such a question, exercise could not be undertaken under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and particularly, when the petitioners had the statutory efficacious alternative remedy. The learned Single Judge further observed that it was not a case falling with any of the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy. 6. more 7. Being aggrieved from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners have approached in the present writ appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there violation of the principles of natural justice. The Arbitrator did not apply the correct principles for determination of the compensation and illegally rejected the arbitration petitions for enhancement of the There was also violation of the petitioners’ fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the was compensation. 4 '9 writ appellants have right to get fair compensation under the Act 2013. Learned counsel for the writ appellants further submitted that the remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, under Section 34, is not equally efficacious and that Section 34 will not apply, as in his submission, the National Highways Act, 1956 is a Special Act and the Special Act overrides the General Act. In his submission, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is a General Act. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the 2"^ respondent submitted that the petitioners/appellants have statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 and in view thereof the Writ Petition has rightly been dismissed granting liberty to avail the statutory remedy. 10. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 11 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is violation of the principles of natural justice as also Article 14 of the Constitution of India, could not substantiated as to how there was violation of the principles of natural justice in determination of the compensation by the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the Act, The arbitration petition was filed by the petitioners themselves. A perusal of the award of the Arbitrator shows that the 12. 1956. 5 contentions raised by the writ petitioners before the Arbitrator finds mention and consideration. It has not been argued before us nor there is any pleading in the writ appeal that such arbitration award was without affording any opportunity of hearing or behind their back. It could not be demonstrated before us as to how there was violation of the principles of natural justice in passing the award or violation of right of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. The only submission raised before us on the above point was that the correct principles of determination have not been applied. Without observing anything on that aspect, whether the Arbitrator’s award determines the compensation by applying the correct principles or not, we are of the view that such a question can very well be addressed, if the petitioners approach the forum providing for the statutory alternative remedy under the Act, 1996. 14. We cannot accept the submission of the petitioners’ counsel that there is violation of the fundamental right of the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the determination of the compensation by the competent authority as also by the Arbitrator was incorrect. The right to get compensation for the acquired land is no doubt a constitutional right but is not a fundamental right. The determination of compensation by the statutory authority correct or sometimes it may not be may be proper or correct but in such cases of grievance, the petitioners have to initially approach statutory forum provided by the statute itself and the on that count, it cannot be termed that the award of the competent authority or the Arbitrator suffered from arbitrariness. 15. The next submission of the petitioner’s counsel is that Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, is a Special Act for in determination of the compensation and therefore Conciliation Act, which is a General Act stands excluded. the Arbitration and 16. We shall refer to the provisions of Section 3G of the Act, 1956 and Sections 34 and 37 of the Act, 1996. 17. Section 3G of the National Highways Act. 1956 reads as under; 3G Determination of amount payable as compensation. (1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. (2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose riqht of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten percent, of the amount determined under sub-section (1) for that land. ' 7 (3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acguired. (4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall require all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub section (2) of section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective Interest In such land. (5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government— (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. (7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration— (a)the market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under section 3A; (b) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the severing of such land from other land; (c) the damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition Injuriously affecting his other Immovable property in any manner, or his earnings; (d) if In consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person Interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses, if any. Incidental to such change. ” Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 18. 1996 read as under; \ ' IV-; V 34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.—(1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and sub-section (3). (2) An arbitral award may be set aside by the Court only 1 If- (a) the party making the application 1 [establishes on the basis of the record of the arbitral tribunal that]— (i) a party i/i/as under some Incapacity, or (ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected It or, failing any indication thereon, under the law for the time being force; or (Hi) the party making the application ivas not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his in case; or (iv) the arbitral award deals with contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions matters beyond the scope of the submission arbitration: a dispute not on to Provided that, If the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the arbitral award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside; or (v) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not In accordance with the agreement of the parties, unless such agreement conflict with a provision of this Pad from which the padies cannot derogate, or, falling such agreement, was not In accordance with this Pad; or (b) the Coud finds that— (i) the subject-matter of the dispute Is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being in force, or was in (ii) the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of India 9 [Explanation 1.—For the avoidance of any doubt, it is clarified that an a\A/ard is in conflict \A/ith the public policy of India, only if,— 0) the making of the av/ard was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or was in violation of section 75 or section 81; or it is in contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law; or It is in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice. [Explanation 2.—For the avoidance of doubt, the test as to whether there is a contravention with the fundamental policy of Indian law shall not entail a review on the merits of the dispute.] [(2A) An arbitral award arising out of arbitrations other than International commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court, if the Court finds that the award is vitiated by patent illegality appearing on the face of the award: (ii) (Hi) Provided that an award shall not be set aside merely on the ground of an erroneous application of the law or by reappreciation of evidence.] (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that If the Court Is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter. (4) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1), the Court may, where It Is appropriate and It is so requested by a party, adjourn the proceedings for a period of time determined by It in order to give the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as in the opinion of arbitral tribunal will eliminate the grounds for setting aside the arbitral award. [(5) An application under this section shall be filed by a party only after issuing a prior notice to the other party and such application shall be accompanied by an affidavit by the applicant endorsing compliance with the said requirement.] (6) An application under this section shall be disposed of expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of one 10 year froni the date on which the notice referred to /, section (5) is served upon the other party. 37. 37. Appealable orders.~(1) [Notwithstanding anything con/a/necy /n any other law for the time being in force, an o^herl mm following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from o^„a/ decrees of the Court passing theZe.) [(a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration in sub- under section 8; (b) granting or refusing to under section 9; (c) setting aside or refusing to set aside award under section 34.] (2) Appeal shall also lie to arbitral tribunal— (a) accepting the plea referred to In sub-section (2) sub-section (3) of section 16; or (b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under ocrCi/.0/7 / /. grant any measure an arbitral a court from an order of the or ZT, ^holl lie from an order passed ,n afferfZZ ^hall Court " appeal to the Supreme Section 3G of the National provides that a 19. Highways Act, 1956 clearly person aggrieved from the determination of the an award of the competent authority application for compensation by the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. Once the Arbitrator amount of compensation by under sub-section (1) or (2) may make determination of the an passes the award remedy to approach under the aggrieved party has the the 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which has been made applicable by a specific provision under sub-section (6) of Section 3G of the National Highways Act 1956. Section 3G(6) clearly provides that ‘subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to Once the provisions of the every arbitration under this Act’. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 have been made applicable to every arbitration under the National Highways Act, 1956, there certainly be remedy as provided under the Act would 1996 against the award of the arbitrator passed under sub-section (5) of Section 3G. The remedy is under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 to challenge the award and then, in case of further grievance to prefer appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996. 20. The determination of the compensation may be by following the principles laid down under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or/and in terms of Section 3G(7) of the Acl, 1956 itself but that does not mean that the applicability of the Arbitration on that ground stands excluded on the principle as argued i.e. ‘special’ excludes the ‘general’. and Conciliation Act, 1996 12 9 21. It is well settled that between a ‘special law’ and ‘general law’, the special law’ always prevails. However, it would be so, in the event of a conflict between a ‘special law’ and ‘general law’. We of the view that firstly, there is no question of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, one being the special and the other being general and secondly, there conflict. The reason is that once the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been made applicable to the award of the arbitrator passed under the National Highways Act, 1956, by specific provision, the question of the ‘special’ excludes ‘general’ does not arise at all. The submission advanced to that effect is misconceived. are IS no 22. We are further of the view that the learned Single Judge right in observing that the writ petition involved disputed questions of fact with respect to the nature of the acquired land whether ^ agricultural or non-agricultural. was We are of the view further that determination of such disputed questions of fact requires evidence for and ordinarily such determination of disputed questions of fact, is not gone into by this Court in the exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the learned Single Judge vyas not inclined to entertain the writ petition observing that the petitioners’ case did not fall within the well recognized exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy and there was 13 to the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy and there was statutory alternative remedy, we do not find it a fit case for interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. We do not find any illegality with the judgment of the learned 23. Single Judge. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 24. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. As a sequel thereto, misoellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. Sd/- M RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Honourable SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI (for his Lordships Kind Perusal) One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEM (for his Lordships Kind Perusal) To, 1. One CC to SRI. CHANDRASEKHARA RAO L T Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. One CC to SRI. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI) Advocate [OPUC] 5. 9 LR.Copies. 6. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 7. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Adocatees’ Association Library, High Court 8. Two CD Copies. AL V \ HIGH COURT LR COPIES DATED:26/09/2025 JUDGMENT WA NO. 859 OF 2025 la: 0 9 OCT 2025 rrs O DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS