Introduction
The petitioners, Ramashankar Yadav and another, moved to the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order dated 03.07.2025 issued by the District Magistrate (Arbitrator) under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. They asked for quashing of this order and prayed for an order to re-survey compensation for their acquired land according to the Phase-III circle rate of the Deputy Registrar (Stamp), dated 26.06.2025, showing rates of Rs. 14,500/- and Rs. 12,000/- per sq. meter.
The complaint arose due to the Arbitrator's order of Rs. 4,000/- per sq. meter, which, in the petitioners' view, was against earlier judicial instructions and grossly underestimated.
Facts of the case
The petitioners were permanent residents of Tehsil Sikandrarau, Village Gausganj, District Hathras. They had two pieces of land acquired by way of registered sale deeds in 2007-08. They had converted the land from agricultural to abadi use (non-agricultural) under Section 143 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, by an order dated 31.01.2008. Later, they constructed a boundary wall and a dwelling structure.
In 2018, the Union of India had initiated acquisition proceedings for widening National Highway No. 91 (Aligarh–Kanpur section). Notifications under Sections 3A and 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956, were properly published, and the land of the petitioners was included in the area of acquisition.
In the initial Arbitration, the petitioners objected to the compensation before the District Magistrate (Arbitrator) under Section 3G(5) of the Act. The order dated 12.06.2020 rejected their claim and maintained the agricultural classification.
The petitioners presented an Arbitration Petition before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hathras, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was granted on 13.05.2022. The arbitral award was revoked and the case remanded for fresh adjudication.
In a new Arbitration, the Arbitrator revisited the matter and, on 21.07.2022, agreed that the land was non-agricultural and ordered compensation on that account. NHAI filed a Misc. Application under Section 34, which the District Judge, Hathras, finalized on 10.09.2024. The Judge partially set aside the order and remitted the case once more, instructing the Arbitrator to reevaluate the compensation, considering the property as abadi land and according to the circle rates relevant thereto.
Counsel contended that the Arbitrator had acted against judicial discipline by ignoring the directions of the District Judge dated 10.09.2024, which directed reassessment based on Phase-III circle rates. The Deputy Registrar, Sikandrarau, in his letter dated 26.06.2025, had certified relevant rates as Rs. 14,500/- and Rs. 12,000/- per sq. meter, but the Arbitrator had arbitrarily fixed the rate of Rs. 4,000/-.
Contentions of the parties
She argued that the Arbitrator overlooked significant considerations under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, such as market value, possible use, and locational factors.
Moreover, it was contended that the petitioners had been deprived of just compensation even after seeking legal recourse for more than seven years, and the behavior of the Arbitrator justified interference by the Court under Article 226, as this was not a matter of mere discontentment with valuation but of contravention of binding judicial orders and statutory requirements.
The respondents argued that the Arbitrator had obeyed the direction of the District Judge by declaring the land as abadi and increasing compensation appropriately. The complaint about the rate was a matter of fact and evidence, not calling for interference under Article 226.
Decision
The Court held that since the petitioners' grievance was about the sufficiency of the compensation and not the validity of the acquisition, the correct approach was to seek remedies under the Arbitration Act and not under Article 226.
The writ petition was thus rejected as not maintainable and upheld the rule that constitutional courts are not appellate forums in cases of arbitral compensation under the National Highways Act.
Case Reference: Ramashankar Yadav and Another Versus Union of India and Others (s). Writ - C No. - 26529 of 2025
Disclaimer
In Compliance with Indian Regulations, Kindly Review the User Acknowledgement and Disclaimer below and then Proceed.
User Acknowledgement
By proceeding further and clicking on the "ACCEPT" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Law Senate (LS) for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Law Senate (LS) or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this website. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below
This website (www.lawsenate.com) is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Law Senate (LS) does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause. Law Senate (LS) further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this website, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner/Partners of this website do not intend links from this site to other internet websites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. Law Senate (LS) is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.
This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the website should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the reader's country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this website should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.
Furthermore, the owner of this website does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this Web site or in a country/state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.
As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, lawyers are not permitted to advertise themselves. The information about the Firm, its Key Practice Areas or its Key Team Members provided under this website is only for informational purposes and it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement of any nature whatsoever.
The information provided on this website is for general information only. It is not intended to create or promote an attorney-client relationship and does not constitute and should not be relied upon or construed as legal advice.
Communications via this website also do not create an attorney-client relationship. Visitor should always seek appropriate professional advice before acting on the basis of any information contained herein.
