Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Pleas Against Arbitrator's Rejection Of Delayed NH -74 Compensation Claims

The Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by landowners challenging an arbitrator's rejection of their delayed claims for enhanced compensation under the National Highways Act, holding that such challenges cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction when a statutory remedy is available under the arbitration law.

It noted that a remedy is available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to challenge such orders.

A single bench of Justice Rakesh Thapliyal noted that the question whether limitation law applies to such arbitrations is still pending before the Supreme Court, but said this does not justify bypassing the statutory route.

“As pointed out the issue whether Limitation Act would apply or not is still subjudice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and admittedly, the petitioners have a statutory remedy as provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, therefore, taking into consideration the preliminary objection of National Highway Authority, this Court is of the view of that all these writ petitions are not maintainable against the order of Arbitrator / Collector, Udham Singh Nagar.,” the court said.

The case arose from the acquisition of land for widening National Highway 74 between Kashipur and Sitarganj. Compensation was fixed by the competent authority through an award on April 27, 2015, followed by a supplementary award on January 20, 2017. Several landowners approached the arbitrator, who is the district collector, seeking enhanced compensation. These applications were filed nearly seven years later and were rejected at the admission stage on the ground of delay.

The landowners argued that the limitation law did not apply and that their claims could not be rejected as time-barred. They said the law governing highway acquisitions does not prescribe any time limit. The National Highways Authority of India opposed the petitions. It raised a preliminary objection that the arbitration law provides a specific remedy to challenge such orders before the District Judge.

Accepting this objection, the court said it would not entertain the writ petitions. It relied on the availability of an alternative statutory remedy and declined to examine the merits of the arbitrator's decision. 

For Petitioner (Saravan Singh & Ors.): Advocate Priyanka Agrawal.

For Respondent (Competent Authority & NHAI): Advocates Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, K.S. Mehta, Raunak Pant.