HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 17950 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J. 1. Comment of NHAI has been passed by Sri P.N. Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, before this Court is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Sri P.N. Rai, learned Senior Counsel for Union of India. 3. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred for a direction to the Special Land Acquisition Officer, District Moradabad to determine the compensation of the petitioner after giving statutory benefit while multiplying the factor as two under Section 26(2), applying other statutory benefit and solatium under Section 30(1), additional amount under Section 30(3) and thereafter allow to interest over the determined amount for first year 9% and thereafter 15% per annum till actual payment. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised two-fold objections ; firstly, the award is made way back in the year 2015 and with an inordinate delay, the petitioner approached and raised an objection to the statutory benefits of Factor- two (under Section 26(2), Solatium under Section 30(1) & 30(3) of the Act, 2013 and interest over the determined amount) has not been disbursed. It is also objected that the said claim has not been setup well within the reasonable time, at this stage, the writ Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shiv Sagar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Paras Nath Rai, Pranjal Mehrotra Ankur Agarwal .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Secondly, an objection has also been raised that the National Highways Act, 1956 itself is a contained act wherein, in case, the tenure holder is aggrieved with the lesser compensation, the appropriate remedy is to agitate before the arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Once, the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner, there is no reason or occasion to bypass the statutory forum. 5. Confronted with the submission, Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Madras High Court in the case of The Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, National Highways Authority of India Vs. K. Periyasamy and submits while invoking the proceedings under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, there is no limitation and, as such, it is claimed even, in case, the court is inclined, in the interest of justice, once the petitioner has prayed for a statutory benefit, which is very much available under the National Highways Act, 1956 read with Land Acquisition Act, 2013, the rightful claim cannot be denied merely on the ground of delay and laches. 6. Considering the factual position and the objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, we leave it open to the petitioner to press the relief in accordance with law before the arbitrator. 7. With the aforesaid relief, the instant petition stands disposed of. October 9, 2025 Priya WRIC No. 17950 of 2025 2 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad