Bombay High Court

MADHUSUDAN BABULAL BHARTIYAversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The petition is dismissed because the petitioner has an adequate remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Arbitrator had already determined that all due benefits were provided.

Summary

The petitioner, Madhusudan Babulal Bhartiya, challenged an order dated 17 July 2019 issued by the learned Arbitrator and District Collector, Aurangabad, which rejected his arbitration application concerning land acquired under the National Highways Authority. The respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, since the order was passed under Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioner contended that the award was made under the National Highways Authority of India (Amendment) Act, 2013, invoking Section 24 of that Act to claim statutory benefits which were allegedly denied. The Court examined the record and noted that the Arbitrator had already held the petitioner received all due benefits and directed him to pursue any further challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and disposed of it without costs, also disposing any pending civil applications.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner can seek relief through a writ petition despite the availability of a remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Whether the award passed under the National Highways Authority of India (Amendment) Act, 2013, entitles the petitioner to additional statutory benefits beyond those already granted.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 34
National Highways Act, 1956 — s. 3(G)(5)
National Highways Authority of India (Amendment) Act, 2013 — s. 24

Subjects

Arbitration
National Highways Act
Section 34
Writ petition
Statutory benefits
Jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:10010



                                                                     29 WP No.2597.2020
                                                  -1-

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 2597 OF 2020

                               MADHUSUDAN BABULAL BHARTIYA
                                              VERSUS
                               THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
                                                  ...
              Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Fulchad R. Tandale
              Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr.Deepak S. Manorkar (Through VC)
              Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Rajendra D. Sanap
                                                  ...

                                   CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                      Date : 4th March, 2026

              PER COURT :-


              1.             Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and respondents.


              2.             The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.07.2019

              passed by the learned Arbitrator and District Collector, Aurangabad in

              Arbitration Application No. 2016/LAWAD/NHAI/AURANGABAD/CR-

              11, whereby, the Arbitration Application filed by the petitioner came to

              be rejected.



              3.             Mr. Manorkar, the learned counsel for the respondent,

              raised a preliminary objection regarding the tenability of the petition.

              He submits that since the order was passed by respondent No. 3 under
                                                      29 WP No.2597.2020
                                    -2-

Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the petitioner has

an alternate remedy to file the proceedings under Section 34 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.


4.           The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revised

award was passed under the National Highways Authority of India

(Amendment) Act, 2013, while admitting that the land was acquired by

the National Highway Authority, he argued that because the award was

passed under the 2013 Act, the petitioner is entitled to all statutory

benefits provided therein. He further invited the Court’s attention to

page 39, the learned counsel noted that the award expressly mentions

the Section 24 of the the 2013 Act; however, the specific benefits the

petitioner is entitled to were not granted.



5.    After going through the record, I find that the petitioner moved

an application before the Competent Authority which is at page no. 63.

The Arbitrator decided the matter by holding that the petitioner had

already received all due benefits and petitioner has remedy to challenge

the same under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.


6.           In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain

the petition. Therefore, writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to
                                                        29 WP No.2597.2020
                                     -3-

costs.



7.            Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.




                                           (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Omkar Joshi

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…