Allahabad High Court
AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI AND 2 OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable where an efficacious statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is available, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioners, Ajay Kumar Tripathi and two others, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Union of India and others to pay compensation for land acquired for a highway at the roadside rate. The respondents, represented by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel, contended that the petitioners must first approach the arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, as the appropriate remedy for compensation disputes. The High Court examined the maintainability of the petition and, without addressing the merits, held that the existence of an efficacious statutory forum precludes the writ petition. The Court dismissed the petition but directed the petitioners to approach the arbitrator within one week for a decision. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any relief being granted.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition seeking mandamus for compensation in a land acquisition case is maintainable when a statutory arbitration mechanism under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 is available.
- Whether the petitioners must first approach the arbitrator before seeking relief from the High Court.
Legislation cited
- National Highways Act, 1956 — s. 3G(5)
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- mandamus
- statutory remedy
- arbitration
- National Highways Act
- maintainability
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16699 of 2026
Ajay Kumar Tripathi And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union Of India And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Daya Shankar Mani Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri
Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent- National
Highway Authority of India (NHAI).
2. This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following
principal relief:
"i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners for
acquisition of their land being plot No. 61 (area 0.3272 hectare) situated
in village Barari Tappa Dhatura Tehsil and District Deoria at the rate
applicable for road side land."
3. At the very outset, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised
an objection qua the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground
that in case, the petitioners are aggrieved with the quantum of compensation,
the appropriate remedy is to agitate the relief before the arbitrator under
Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act, 1956'). Once, the efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners,
there is no reason or occasion to bypass the statutory forum.
4. Considering the factual situation, without adverting on merits of the case,
we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition or accord any relief.
However, it is observed that in case the petitioners approach the Arbitrator
WRIC No. 16699 of 2026
2
under Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956 within one week from today, the same
shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
5. With the aforesaid leave, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 7, 2026
A.K.Srivastava
Digitally signed by :-
ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…