Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court issued notice on the question of maintainability of a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging compensation under the National Highways Act, 1956, despite the existence of an alternate statutory remedy of arbitration under Section 3-G(5) of the said Act. While the issue of maintainability was the preliminary question, the Court noted that in view of the legal principles laid down in various Supreme Court and High Court judgments cited by the petitioner, the matter warranted consideration. Accordingly, notice was issued to the respondents, and the matter was posted for further hearing on 7th August 2025.
Facts
The petitioners had approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the compensation awarded to them for acquisition of their land under the National Highways Act, 1956. The main contention was that the compensation was inadequate and had not been determined in accordance with the statutory provisions. However, the preliminary issue raised was whether the writ petition was maintainable at all when the National Highways Act, 1956 itself provides a mechanism for arbitration under Section 3-G(5) for resolving disputes relating to the amount of compensation.
Issues
- Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is maintainable for challenging compensation determined under the National Highways Act, 1956.
- Whether the existence of an alternate statutory remedy under Section 3-G(5) for arbitration precludes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners, through their counsel, relied on a series of decisions to argue that the writ petition was maintainable even when an alternative remedy existed. They cited the following judgments:
- National Highways Authority of India v. Resham Singh (Punjab and Haryana High Court, 2023)
- Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (Civil Appeal No. 7064 of 2019)
- Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, 2025 INSC 146
- Gayatri Balasamy v. M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies, 2025 INSC 605
- Project Director, NH v. M. Hakeem, AIR 2021 SC 3471
- ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation, AIR Online 2003 SC 700
- Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation, AIR 2003 SC 2120
They submitted that the writ jurisdiction was not barred merely because an alternate remedy existed, especially in cases where the alternate remedy was not efficacious or where a violation of fundamental rights or statutory provisions was alleged.
Respondent’s Arguments
Although a formal counter affidavit had not yet been filed, the Court recorded that the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and Senior Panel Counsel accepted notice on behalf of the Union of India. They were granted time to take instructions and respond to the maintainability of the petition, indicating a preliminary objection on the ground of alternate remedy under the National Highways Act.
Analysis of the Law
Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 provides for statutory arbitration in case of dispute concerning compensation. However, constitutional courts have consistently held that the existence of such a remedy does not automatically oust the writ jurisdiction under Article 226, particularly in cases involving procedural irregularities, denial of natural justice, or violation of statutory or constitutional rights.
The petitioners invoked a consistent line of case law recognizing this principle. The Supreme Court in Harbanslal Sahnia, ABL International, and M. Hakeem affirmed that writ jurisdiction can be exercised even where alternate remedies are available if exceptional circumstances are shown.
Precedent Analysis
- Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation – Held that availability of alternative remedy does not bar writ petition where the remedy is not efficacious or where principles of natural justice are violated.
- ABL International Ltd. v. ECGC – Affirmed that disputed questions of fact can also be decided in writ petitions if supported by documentary evidence.
- Project Director, NH v. M. Hakeem – Dealt with the scope of judicial review under arbitration and clarified limits on court interference but acknowledged writ remedies in certain situations.
- Tarsem Singh decisions – Recognized the judicial scrutiny over land acquisition and compensation disputes.
- Gayatri Balasamy – Explained situations where parties may bypass arbitration if compelling circumstances exist.
The High Court did not make a conclusive finding on these precedents but acknowledged that they raised arguable questions justifying the issuance of notice.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench observed that the preliminary issue of maintainability could not be brushed aside in light of the multiple authoritative judgments cited by the petitioner. The Court did not reject the writ outright, instead noting:
“In view of the ratio decided in the aforesaid case laws, the matter requires consideration.”
This observation underscores that the Court saw sufficient merit in the petitioner’s legal arguments to examine the maintainability of the petition on the next date.
Conclusion
The Orissa High Court issued notice on the preliminary issue of maintainability and listed the matter for further consideration on 7th August 2025. Notices were issued to all respondents, and the Union of India was directed to file a counter affidavit if any. The matter is now pending adjudication on whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the arbitration mechanism under the National Highways Act.
Implications
This order reinforces the evolving jurisprudence that availability of statutory remedies like arbitration does not automatically bar writ jurisdiction, especially when legal and constitutional challenges are raised. It highlights the cautious approach taken by constitutional courts in land acquisition and compensation matters. If the Court eventually upholds the maintainability, it may open avenues for similar challenges against compensation orders issued under the National Highways Act, 1956.
Judgments Referred and Their Relevance
- Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corp. – Allowed writs despite alternate remedies when rights are violated.
- ABL International v. ECGC – Writ maintainable even in contractual disputes.
- Project Director v. M. Hakeem – Emphasized limits on court interference with arbitration awards but did not preclude writ jurisdiction.
- Union of India v. Tarsem Singh – Addressed land acquisition disputes in the context of compensation.
- Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft – Discussed exceptions to the arbitration bar.
- Resham Singh case – High Court upheld maintainability of writs against compensation proceedings under similar context.
These were used to support the petitioner’s case that the writ petition was maintainable despite arbitration being provided.
FAQs
Q1. Is a writ petition maintainable when arbitration is available under the National Highways Act?
Yes, in certain circumstances. The High Court has issued notice on this very question, indicating that maintainability depends on the facts and legal context.
Q2. What is Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act?
It provides for arbitration by a competent authority in case of disputes regarding compensation for land acquired for national highways.
Q3. Why did the Court not dismiss the writ petition outright?
Because the petitioner cited several precedents where constitutional courts entertained writs despite alternate remedies, the Court found the issue worthy of consideration.
