1 CGHC010230732021 2026:CGHC:42131 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3690 of 2021 1 - Kanhaiya Lal Sinha (Died Through Lrs) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 16-07-2025 1.1 - Vijay Kumar Sinha S/o Late Kanaihaya Lal Sinha Aged About 30 Years Residing At Near Nh-6, Khatutola, Rampur Chichola Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)] 1.2 - Kamlesh Sinha S/o Late Kanaihaya Lal Sinha Aged About 33 Years Residing At Near Nh-6, Khatutola, Rampur Chichola Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 1.3 - Smt Meena Bai Sinha Wife Of Late Kanaihaya Lal Sinha Aged About 57 Years Residing At Near Nh-6, Khatutola, Rampur Chichola Rajnandgaon District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through Its Ministry Of Road Transport 85 High Ways Department Of Road, Transport 85 High Ways Transport Bhavan, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110075 2 - National Highway Authority Of India Through Project Director, Project Implementation Unit, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Land Acquisition Officer Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh --- Respondents (Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioners : Mr. Sameer Uraon, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate For State : Ms. Akanksha Verma, PL For NHAI : Ms. Aishley Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 28.09.2026 1. The petitioners in the writ petition have prayed for the following reliefs :- “ A. A writ and/ or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue commanding and directing the respondents to produce before this Court all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioners for its kind perusal. B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue quashing the impugned award dated 30.07.2021 and all orders of the authorities below culminating into the impugned order which is arbitrarily, illegal and not with consonance with 3 the provisions of Land Acquisition laws and law laid down by the Courts of law and even after the lapse of 12 years till date denial of compensation also amounts to infringement of fundamental, constitutional, other rights of petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue direction for adequately compensating the petitioner in consonance with the statutory provisions and law laid down in Courts of law accordingly in the interest of justice. 10.5 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the original petitioner, Late Kanhiya Lal Sinha, was the absolute owner and in possession of the subject land, which constituted the sole source of livelihood of his family. Khasra No. 524/2 contained a kuccha structure measuring approximately 20 ft. × 33.6 ft., from which the family ran a small hotel, while Khasra No. 522/4 was used for cultivation and sale of vegetables, yielding an annual income of approximately 50,000/-. The entire family was ₹ dependent upon the income generated from the subject land. It is submitted that, during the year 2009-2010, the subject land was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 for 4 construction/widening of National Highway No. 6. An award dated 25.01.2011 determined compensation of approximately 56,806/- ₹ for Khasra No. 522/4 and 90,000/- for Khasra No. 524/2, which, ₹ according to the petitioners, was wholly inadequate and did not reflect the prevailing market value of the land and structure. The original petitioner challenged the award before the Arbitrator/Additional Collector, Rajnandgaon, but his claim for enhancement was rejected on 07.12.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the District Judge, Rajnandgaon in MJC Civil Case No. 05/2012 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 3G(6) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The matter subsequently came before this Court in ARBA No. 23 of 2018, wherein, vide order dated 20.07.2018, the matter was directed to be reconsidered after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. Pursuant thereto, the District Judge, Rajnandgaon, vide order dated 11.10.2018, directed the petitioner to approach the competent authority/Land Acquisition Officer and directed fresh consideration after permitting the parties to lead oral and documentary evidence. In compliance thereof, the original petitioner approached the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Rajnandgaon, and placed on record material regarding the market value of the land, value of the structure, loss of income and livelihood, cost of alternative housing and business, and claimed enhanced compensation of approximately 55,10,000/- ₹ 5 with interest at 12% per annum. However, vide impugned order dated 30.07.2021, the claim was rejected on the ground that compensation had already been determined on the basis of the prevailing guidelines. It is contended that the authority failed to independently assess the market value, the value of the structure, loss of livelihood, and the evidence produced by the petitioner, despite the directions issued by the competent courts. Learned counsel further submits that, during the pendency of the proceedings, the original petitioner expired and his legal representatives are prosecuting the claim arising from acquisition of the deceased's estate. It is submitted that the original petitioner had been bona fide pursuing his claim for just compensation since 2011 through successive statutory and judicial proceedings, while the acquired land was utilised for construction of the National Highway, leaving the family without its principal source of livelihood. It is lastly contended that the respondent authorities failed to discharge their statutory obligations under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, read with the First Schedule thereto. According to the petitioners, determination of compensation was required to take into account the market value, applicable multiplication factor, interest and solatium. The authorities allegedly failed to apply the multiplication factor of two (2) prescribed under the notification dated 02.05.2019, resulting in determination of compensation contrary 6 to the applicable statutory provisions. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.07.2021 is sought to be set aside and the compensation reconsidered in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- NHAI at the outset submits that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 to redress his grievance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in view of the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, submits that he may be permitted to avail the said remedy in accordance with law. 5. In a case with similar background, this Court in WA No.140 of 2022 and other connected matters while disposing the said appeal on 10.12.2024 took notice of the following questions posed by this Court in WA No.07/2019 and other connected matters {Ashutosh Agrawal and Another vs. Union of India and Others}:- (f) If there is patent arbitrariness in the ‘decision making process’ and the decision taken, should the party be relegated to the remedy by way of Arbitration and whether the course pursued by the learned Single Judge declining to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be justified; more so, where there is no disputed question of fact ? 7 (g) Is the alternate remedy a bar of law, or rule of convenience ?” The Division Bench of this Court in para 17 held as under:- 17. After hearing both the sides and also in view of the precedents cited from both the sides, we do not have any doubt to hold that power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is even wider of the power of the Apex Court under Article 32 cannot be curtailed by any statute. The existence of alternate remedy is more a 'rule of convenience' and the parties would be relegated to pursue such remedy, under normal circumstances. But if special circumstances are involved or whether the proceeding under challenge is per se arbitrary and illegal or if it has resulted in total miscarriage of justice, the discretionary power vested in this Court to have the matter considered under Article 226 is always there, to be invoked. In view of the particular nature of challenge raised and the factual position demonstrated by the Appellants, resulting in payment of higher compensation to an adjoining / identical property having a lesser extent/area while awarding only a lower amount to the Appellants (merely for the 8 reason that the property involved is having a higher extent) cannot but be held as an arbitrary exercise and we find it appropriate to have it considered by this Court. The question is answered in favour of the Appellants and against the Respondents.” 6. The Division Bench of this Court in WA No.140 of 2022 held that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court as even otherwise, learned Single Judge has observed that subject to the petitioners approaching the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Govt. in this regard within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the Arbitrator notified shall proceed and decide the matter objectively after due consideration of the claim of petitioners and the grounds raised by them seeking for quashment of the award to the extent of the compensation quantified and the multiplier factor taken into consideration for computation of compensation. 7. In view of the submissions made by the parties and the findings arrived at by the Division Bench of this Court, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government in this regard as per Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Arbitrator notified shall proceed and decide the matter objectively after due consideration of the claim 9 of petitioners and the grounds raised by her seeking for quashment of the award to the extent of the compensation quantified and the multiplier factor to be taken into consideration for computation of compensation. The said exercise be done by the Arbitrator within a period of 6 months from the date the petitioners makes their appearance before him/her. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. In the event the petitioners avails the aforesaid remedy, the competent authority/Arbitrator shall consider and decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. SD/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL