HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 34019 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J. HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondent and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel, who appears for N.H.A.I. 2. The present writ petition is preferred seeking quashing of the impugned order/award dated 01.06.2016 passed by the respondent no.4, Competent Authority/Special Land Acquisitioin Officer (S.S.), District Saharanpur as well as the order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the respondent no.2, Colelctor/Mediator, Saharanpur in Case No. 1612 / 2022 (Computerized Case No. D-202209600001612 (Sushma Rani w/o- Baburam vs. Saksham Adhikari and another) under Section 32 Chh(5) of National Highways Act, 1956. It is also prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioner as commercial rate for the acquired Khasra No. 593, area 0.0943 hectare situated in Sarsawa Pargana Sarsawa, Tehsil-nakud, District Saharanpur. 3. At the very outset, 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. Being dissatisfied with the compensation determined, the petitioner approached the Arbitrator as per Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Archana Chauhan, Sanjeev Kumar Khare Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pranjal Mehrotra Smt. Sushma Rani .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) the provisions of the Act, 1956 read with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitrator rejected the petitioner's 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 petitioner 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 petitioner has already availed the remedy before the Arbitrator and is 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. September 25, 2025 Ashish Pd. WRIC No. 34019 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHISH PRASAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad