Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:107096-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17432 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Parul Jindal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Harish Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- Paras Nath Rai,C.S.C.,Pranjal Mehrotra Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard Shri Hrish Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Gopal Chandra Saxena, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, and Shri Akash Ojha, holding brief of Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent – National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). 2. The instant writ petition is preferred, inter alia, praying for the following relief: "(A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 22.12.2022 to the extent to refuse to grant compensation of the land of the petitioners at commercial rate. (B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner-II/Arbitrator Moradabad Region Moradabad. (C) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to enhance the compensation at commercial rate of the land of petitioners alongwith interest permissible under the law." 3. At the very outset, Shri Akash Ojha, holding brief of Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent – NHAI, has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. It is submitted that the acquisition proceedings were initiated under the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short, the Act, 1956), and the award was made on 22.12.2022. Being dissatisfied with the compensation determined, the petitioners approached the Arbitrator as per the provisions of the Act, 1956 read with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitrator, by the order dated 29.03.2025, rejected the petitioners’ claim for enhancement. Learned counsel submits that in view of the remedy provided under Section 3G(6) of the Act, 1956, which allows an aggrieved party to file an appeal before a competent court, the present writ petition is not maintainable. The Act, 1956 being a self-contained Act, provides a complete mechanism for redressal of grievances related to compensation, and hence, the petitioners should avail the statutory appellate remedy instead of invoking writ jurisdiction. 4. Having considered the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for NHAI and upon perusal of the relevant provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, this Court finds substance in the objection. The statutory framework under the Act, 1956, read with Section 3G(6), clearly provides for an appellate remedy in the event of any grievance arising out of the award or the Arbitrator’s decision. The petitioners have already availed the remedy before the Arbitrator and are now seeking to bypass the statutory appellate mechanism by approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is a settled principle of law that when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available under the statute, this Court would ordinarily not entertain a writ petition. In view of the same, and the fact that no exceptional circumstances have been pleaded or demonstrated to justify the invocation of writ jurisdiction, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 NLY Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad