1. The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that he is the absolute owner of H.No. 6-94, Marripally Village, Chaarakonda Mandal, Nagar Kurnool District, having acquired it from his father via Registered Gift Deed No. 2162/20219 dated 26.02.2019, and constructed a six-room RCC house for his family’s livelihood. The respondents initiated a Notification No. RW/NH-12014/104/2016-TS/T-7, on30.11.2016, for the construction of a two-lane National Highway from Charakonda Village, Tandra, and Kondareddipally to Mallepally, covering the stretch from KM 67 to KM 114.425 of the Kalvakurthy-Mallepally section of NH-167. From the outset, the petitioner and other villagers objected to the notification, highlighting the adverse impact on their residential properties.

               1.1 It is stated that the respondents failed to follow the statutory procedures under Sections 3A to 3C of the National Highways Act, which mandate publication of proposals, consideration of objections through personal hearings, and proper survey and demarcation of affected properties before issuing a final notification under Section 3D. Instead, the petitioner claims that he and other villagers faced threats from local political leaders when they questioned the irregularities. The petitioner further states that the compensation award passed by the competent authority was influenced by political pressure, ignoring the procedures prescribed under Act 30 of 2013 and the Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015. He alleges that some individuals with less or no actual land were given inflated compensation amounts due to political influence, citing serial numbers 04 to 10 in the award proceedings dated June 24, 2020, as examples of such irregularities.

               1.2 It is stated that on 04.02.2025, while the petitioner was attending a funeral in another village, the respondent authorities, aided by police force, forcibly broke the lock of his house at 8:00 a.m., seized all household belongings—including cooking utensils and clothes—and transported them to Charakonda Police Station. Despite immediately submitting a written representation on the same day and orally requesting the authorities to stop the demolition, the petitioner states that no action was taken, and his family was left to live under a tree on the outskirts of the village. The following day, 05.02.2025, the petitioner was allegedly coerced into signing two cheques from the 6th respondent, each dated 05.02.2025, for amounts of Rs. 4,39,716 and Rs. 12,26,883 respectively, which were never drawn. It is stated that the total extent of his land, 260.66 square yards, was forcibly taken without due process or statutory entitlements, leaving his family destitute.

               1.3 The petitioner challenges the demolition of his house and seizure of his property as illegal, and seeks to set aside award proceedings and direct the respondents to provide compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement benefits in strict compliance with the National Highways Act, 1986, the Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015, and other applicable laws, along with any other orders deemed just and proper in the circumstances.

2. Though counter affidavits are filed separately by the respondent No.8-Executive Engineer, Department of Roads & Buildings, Government of Telangana, on his behalf, and also on behalf of respondent No.3- Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Central Government, essentially the contentions raised in both the counter affidavits are the same. It is essentially contended in the counters thatthe petitioner is not entitled to Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as the project is a linear highway expansion and does not involve large-scale displacement.

               2.1 It is contended that the highway project was sanctioned by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MORTH), Government of Indiafor the widening of the Kalwakurthy-Mallepally Section of NH-167 from Km 67/0 to Km 114/425, at an estimated cost of Rs. 300.00 crores for a total length of 47.005 kilometers. The work was entrusted to M/s SRK Constructions & Projects Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 171.96 crores with a 24-month completion timeline, including geometric improvements at select curves. The Right of Way (ROW) for the project was established at 100 feet, with 50 feet on either side from the road center. Respondent No. 3 issued a Notificationdated 30.11.2016for land acquisition in Charakonda Village, Tandra, and Kondareddipally. While the petitioner and other villagers initially objected, all procedural requirements under Sections 3A, 3D, and 3G of the NH Act, 1956 were scrupulously followed, including publication of notifications in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary Part-II No. 2948 dated July 30, 2018) and local newspapers such as “Sakshi” (Telugu) and “The Hindu” (English) on 26.08.2018, allowing 21 days for objections.

               2.2 The respondent details that the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), appointed via Gazette notification S.O. No. 2091 (B) on 30.06.2017,conducted hearings and addressed objections regarding alignment adjustments. The final notification under Section 3D was issued vide S.O. No. 2338 (E) dated 03.07.2019. Claims and objections from interested parties were invited through publications in “Namaste Telangana” (Telugu) and “Deccan Chronicle” (English) on 07.08.2019, with documentary evidence to substantiate land ownership. Following the award enquiry at the Tahsil office, Charakonda on 19.08.2019, Award Proceedings dated 24.06.2020were passed for land compensation, while structures were separately addressed in Award Proceedingsdated 28.02.2022.Compensation amounts were placed in joint accounts of CALA/RDO Kalwakurthy and the Executive Engineer for disbursal.

               2.3 It is contended that R & R entitlements apply only to large- scale displacements in projects like industrial townships, urbanization schemes, or hydel projects. Linear highway projects, like NH-167, do not attract R&R benefits. The respondent denies the allegations of malpractices in award proceedings, non-enquiry, or political pressure.

               2.4 Concerning the alleged forcible demolition on 04.02.2025, at 8:00 a.m., it is contended that cheques for compensation were issued to the petitioner on 05.02.2025: Cheque No. 442611 for Rs. 4,39,716 toward the house site and Cheque No. 442612 for Rs. 12,26,883 for structure compensation; and that notices were issued to surrender possession within 60 days (i.e., by 06.05.2023), published in “Namaste Telangana” and “The Hindu” on 07.03.2023. It is contended that most owners collected their compensation, however, five of them, including the petitioner, did not collect, thereby delaying completion of the Charakonda realignment portion for a 0.96 km stretch from Km 83/600 to Km 85/400, causing public inconvenience.

               2.5 It is contended that pursuant to clause 3.8(iii) of Chapter 3 of the NH Act, 1956, possession of land could be taken with police assistance if owners failed to comply, and that prior notice was provided via the Tahsildar of Charakonda and public announcement through tom-tom notification. The petitioner’s eventual collection of Rs. 16,66,599 on 18.02.2025, from joint accounts is documented, including Rs. 4,39,716 for the house site and Rs. 12,26,883 for structures. Solatium and interest were paid in accordance with law. Any grievances regarding the adequacy of compensation could have been addressed to the Arbitrator (District Collector & Magistrate, Nagarkurnool), appointed as arbitrator vide MORTH Gazette No. S.O. 1731(E) dated 16.04.2024, or through civil court, as provided under law.

               2.6 It is contended that provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, including the Second Schedule, do not apply to this linear highway project, as National Highways Act, 1956 is included in the Fourth Schedule of the Act. It is contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019 (9) SCC 304) confirmed that R&R provisions are not applicable to land acquisition done for National Highways.

               2.7 It is finally contended that the project is already 98% complete, except for the Charakonda realignment pending for 0.96 km, thereby causing public inconvenience.

3. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.6-Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, Kalwakurthy Division, Nagarkurnool District, contending that the petitioner seeks to challenge the lawful acquisition and demolition of his residential property at House No. 14-16 in Sy. 763, Charakonda Village, purportedly executed under Award Proceedings dated 24.06.2020, as part of the NH-167.

               3.1 It is contended that the road widening for the Kalwakurthy– Mallepally section of National Highway-167, covering a distance of 47.005 km was sanctioned at an estimated cost of Rs. 300.00 Crores, with M/s. SRK Constructions & Projects Pvt. Ltd. contracted for Rs. 171.96 Crores to complete the work within 24 months. The right-of-way for the project was 100 feet, and a formal notification dated 30.11.2016 was issued to inform affected landowners, including the petitioner. The respondent was appointed Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) by Gazette SO No. 2091(E) dated 30.06.2017 to oversee acquisition in accordance with the National Highways Act, 1956. A specific extent of 218 square meters (260.66 sq. yards), comprising the petitioner’s house and land, was acquired following the statutory procedure, beginning with the issuance of Section 3A notification approved by the Central Government via S.O. No. 3738(E) dated 30.07.2018, published in the Gazette and in newspapers “Sakshi” and “The Hindu” on 26.08.2018, inviting objections within 21 days.

               3.2 It is contended that objections related to alignment changes were addressed, with technical constraints limiting modifications. Subsequent notifications under Sections 3D and 3G were issued on 03.07.2019 and 07.08.2019, respectively, with newspaper publications in “Namaste Telangana” and “Deccan Chronicle”, inviting claims with documentary evidence. The CALA conducted an award inquiry on 19.08.2019 and passed award proceedings No. E/443/Realignment/2020 on 24.06.2020 for land and a separate structure award on 28.02.2022. Compensation amounts were deposited in the joint account of the CALA/RDO, Kalwakurthy. It is contended that Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) entitlements were not applicable because the NH-167 widening is a linear project, not involving large-scale dislocation, consistent with Section 105 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and reinforced by Supreme Court precedents, including the judgment in Tarsem Singh (supra).

               3.3 It is contended that there was no forcible eviction on 04.02.2025, and that prior notice was provided through the Tahsildar and public announcements via tom-tom beat, and that the petitioner had already received compensation cheques: Cheque No. 442611 dated 05.02.2025 for Rs. 4,39,716 for the house site, and Cheque No. 442612 dated 05.02.2025 for Rs. 12,26,883 for structures, and both the cheques were encashed by the petitioner on 18.02.2025. The respondent explains that possession was lawfully taken under Section 3E(2) of the NH Act with police assistance, as stipulated in the guidelines for linear projects, after the petitioner failed to collect the compensation within 60 days despite two public notices published on 07.03.2023 and 14.06.2023. Out of 29 beneficiaries, only five, including the petitioner, had not collected cheques, delaying completion of the Charakonda realignment segment (0.96 km from km 83/600 to km 85/400), which otherwise had 98% of the highway project completed, causing public inconvenience.

4. A separate counter-affidavit is filed by the 8threspondent-Executive Engineer of the State R&B Department. He had also filed a separate counter on behalf of the 3rd respondent-MORTH, Government of India. Reiterating the contentions taken in the said counter affidavit filed on behalf of 3rd respondent, it is contended that the land acquisition and demolition for the NH-167 widening project were carried out strictly in accordance with law and established procedures, and that the highway project was duly sanctioned, all statutory notifications were issued, objections were considered, and proper award proceedings were completed for both land and structures. The petitioner was paid full compensation by way of Cheques, and the Cheques were collected and encashed by the petitioner. It is contended that prior notices were given before lawful possession was taken on 04.02.2025 and that there is no forceful eviction or illegal demolition. It is contended that Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits are not applicable to this linear highway project under the RFCTLARR Act, and that any grievance relates only to compensation, for which alternative remedies exist.

5. The petitioner filed separate reply affidavits, in response to the counter-affidavits of respondents No.3, 6, and 8, asserting that the authorities misrepresented facts and law to justify an otherwise illegal acquisition and demolition of his property. It is contended that it is contradiction on the part of the respondents (competent authorities), who themselves verified the petitioner’s ownership on the one hand, and claiming ignorance of the title to the property on the other. It is contended that mandatory procedures under the National Highways Act, 1956— particularly the issuance of personal notices and conduct of hearings under Section 3C—were not followed. He contends that the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, including rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements under the Second Schedule, are applicable to him, as he was displaced, and the respondents deliberately misinterpreted legal provisions and precedents, ignoring the effect of the Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015. He further alleges that he was coerced into accepting compensation only after his house was demolished without proper notice, rendering the dispossession illegal. The petitioner denies the allegation that he caused delays, and on the contrary alleges that the respondents committed procedural lapses, and his fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 300A were violated.

6. Heard Mr. Ch. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for NHAI, learned Standing Counsel for CALA,and Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India. Perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have largely filed false, repetitive, and selective submissions in their counter-affidavits, and that the acquisition of the petitioner’s land and residential house under the National Highways Act, 1956, was procedurally flawed. The petitioner’s ownership and title were verified by the competent authorities, making the respondents’ claims of ignorance untenable. It is contended that no personal notices were issued for hearings or award inquiries, and compensation for land and structures was delayed by up to two years without fault of the petitioner, who lawfully exercised his rights. The petitioner asserts that the Second Schedule of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies, and that the respondents misrepresented selective guidelines and Supreme Court judgments to avoid providing rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements, while Third Schedule provisions are irrelevant due to the absence of mass displacement. The respondents illegally took possession and demolished the petitioner’s house without the mandatory 60-day notice, causing severe hardship and rendering the family homeless, in violation of Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution.

               7.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on:

               1) Ranivr Singh v. National Highways Authority of India (2023 SCC OnLine All 5276)

               2) Rampal Singh v. National Highways Authority of India (Neutral Citation No: 2024:AHC:72392 – DB (Allahabad High Court))

               3) Madi Satyavati v. State of Telangana (W.A. No. 676 of 2023 (Telangana High Court))

               4) Akkala Chandrakala v. The State of Telangana (W.P. No. 11486 of 2024 (Telangana High Court));

               7.2. In Ranivr Singh (supra), the Allahabad High Court addressed petitions by displaced families who claimed that the National Highway Authority of India had failed to provide mandatory rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court held that the status of affected families must be properly assessed, rejecting the authorities’ contention that linear road projects cause minimal disruption. It directed the competent authority to conduct a thorough inquiry and submit a resettlement proposal to the District Collector, ensuring that eligible landowners receive entitlements such as housing units, employment opportunities, or relocation allowances as part of their compensation.

               7.3 In Rampal Singh (supra), the Allahabad High Court considered the entitlement of landowners to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits following land acquisition for national highways. The Court confirmed that while the National Highways Act, 1956 governs the acquisition, the beneficial provisions of the 2013 Act must still be applied to affected families. A key point of contention involved whether the District Collector or the competent authority designated under highway law should finalise these awards. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the competent authority holds the power to determine these specific entitlements to ensure consistency with existing highway statutes. To prevent excessive litigation, the bench also requested that the Central Government issue a formal circular clarifying these legal requirements for all future cases.

               7.4. In Madi Satyavati (supra), the Division Bench of this Court dealt with a matter pertaining to land acquisition for a railway project; and held that not only the mother, but also her three daughters, qualify as an affected family under Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013; and modified a prior order to ensure that rehabilitation benefits are determined for the daughters in addition to the mother’s solatium and allowed the appellants to seek a formal reference if they are dissatisfied with the final monetary compensation, reinforcing that the rights of all affected family members must be recognized in land acquisition cases.

               7.5 In Akkala Chandrakala (supra), this Courtconsidered a dispute over land acquisition for the development of National Highway 765DG. The petitioners, whose homes were being acquired, sought Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, while government authorities argued that such benefits were not applicable to the road-widening project under the National Highways Act, 1956. This Court, by interim order dated 12.11.2024, rejected the authorities’ prayer to vacate an earlier stay order and indicated that highway acquisitions remain subject to modern R&R protections, and granted status quo until final hearing, while allowing authorities to begin the formal process of determining and awarding R&R compensation.

8. Learned Standing Counsel for NHAI contends that the NH-167 Kalwakurthy–Mallepally widening project was sanctioned by MORTH, with statutory notifications under Sections 3A, 3D, and 3G published in the Gazette and newspapers, objections were heard and considered, and award proceedings passed for both land and structures, with compensation duly deposited in joint accounts. The petitioner’s allegations of irregularities, political interference, or denial of Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits are denied, as such entitlements do not apply to linear highway projects involving limited displacement. It is contended that possession was taken under Section 3E(2) after prior notices via Tahsildar and public announcement, and delays in compensation collection by the petitioner do not constitute procedural lapses. Any grievances regarding compensation could have been addressed to the District Collector & Magistrate, appointed as arbitrator. The respondent underscores that all statutory requirements, award procedures, and legal provisions, including Solatium and interest, were followed, and that the writ petition is motivated by mala fide intent to delay the project, which is otherwise 98% complete, and therefore the writ petition may be dismissed.

9. Learned Standing Counsel for CALA contends that all statutory procedures under the National Highways Act, 1956, including notifications under Sections 3A, 3D, 3G, public hearings, and award proceedings, were duly followed, with the petitioner’s land and structures duly assessed and compensated. It is contended that compensation cheques were issued and available for collection, and lawful possession was taken with police assistance after the petitioner failed to collect payments within the stipulated period. It is contended that R&R entitlements under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, are not applicable, as the project is a linear highway expansion and does not involve large-scale displacement, consistent with Supreme Court rulings and the Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015. The CALA also emphasizes that objections were considered within technical constraints, and delays or non-collection by the petitioner do not amount to procedural lapses. Allegations of illegal eviction, non- payment, or political interference are denied, and the petitioner’s grievance is limited to compensation, which can be addressed by the designated District Collector & Arbitrator.

10. Learned Additional Solicitor General relies on several judgments in support of his contention that a writ remedy is not maintainable in the instant case; particularly on Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra (1997 (1) SCC 134) and contends that the Courts have to weigh the public interest vis-à-vis the private interest while exercising the power and there are many ways of affording appropriate relief and redressing a wrong, and that quashing of acquisition proceedings is not the only mode of redress.

               10.1. He also relies on Nerajala Nageswara Rao v. Union of India (2017 SCC Online Hyd 250), to contend that alternative remedy harsh one should not be resorted in public purpose projects and larger public purpose prevails over individual interest. He also relies on N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain (2022 (6) SCC 127), to contend that construction of road is an infrastructure project and keeping in view the intent of the legislature that infrastructure projects should not be stayed, the High Court would have been well advised to hold its hand to stay the construction of the infrastructure project.

               10.2. He also relies on Bluepark Seafoods (P) Ltd v. District Collector (2011 SCC OnLine AP 267) and contends that in case of acquisition for benefit of general public, the landowner can stake claim for reasonable compensation and nothing beyond that. Relying on NHAI v. Sayedabad Tea Company Ltd ((2020) 15 SCC 161), it is contended that National Highways Act is a special enactment and a comprehensive code which provides an inbuilt mechanism for initiating acquisition until culmination of the proceedings in determining the compensation and its adjudication by arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of the NH Act.

               10.3. He also relies on the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka, at Bengaluru, in W.P.No.10103 of 2020 (LA-RES) and batch, dated 19.07.2022, and contends that in the said case, the High Court of Karnataka has set aside the awards passed by the CALA and directed the authority to redetermine the compensation afresh, and if the parties are aggrieved by the fresh awards passed by the CALA, the parties can approach the arbitrator.

               10.4. He also relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Tirupati Developers v. The Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli (Civil Appeal No.4952 of 2023, dated August 7, 2023), and contends that the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Collector to give one opportunity to the appellant therein to submit its objections, followed by personal hearing and thereafter pass appropriate award after holding inquiry under Section 23 of the RTCTLARR Act, and therefore similar dispensation may be shown in the present writ petition as well in view of similarity of facts.

11. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the essential grievance of the petitioners is that their agricultural lands and residential houses were acquired for a National Highway project under the NHAI Act and that, although compensation was awarded and accepted under protest (with arbitration applications for enhancement still pending), they have been denied Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that by virtue of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, as extended through the 2015 Removal of Difficulties Order, they are legally entitled not only to compensation but also to R&R benefits under the Second and Third Schedules, even in acquisitions under the NHAI Act. Despite this, the authorities refused such benefits based on an NHAI clarification which is alleged to be contrary to law. They further allege that the authorities failed to properly consider their representations and are proceeding to dispossess them without granting R&R benefits, thereby rendering them homeless and causing irreparable harm. According to the petitioners, this denial is arbitrary, violates statutory obligations, and infringes their constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300A.

               11.1. On the contrary, the essential contention of the respondents (NHAI and CALA authorities) is that the petitioners have already received legally admissible compensation for their lands and structures acquired for the Karimnagar–Warangal section of National Highway-563 under the National Highways Act, 1956, following all statutory procedures, including survey, notification, hearing, and award. It is the specific contention of the respondents that the petitioners’ claim for Rehabilitation and Resettlement (R&R) benefits under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is legally misconceived, as the provisions of the Second and Third Schedules apply only to large- scale displacement projects (e.g., hydel projects, industrial townships), not linear infrastructure projects like national highways, and no Central Government notification under the Fourth Schedule has extended these benefits to acquisitions under the NHAI Act. It is contended that in the instant case, there is no acquisition of the entire village or villages, requiring the villagers, along with their cattle, livestock, houses, and livelihood, to be entirely shifted/relocated to an alternative location, and re-establish the village at some other place entirely. It is the specific contention of the respondents that only such limited extent of land(s),which is falling under the highway alignment, have been acquired, and therefore there cannot be any contention of displacement of persons requiring rehabilitation and resettlement. It is however contended that, for any structures, standing crops, trees etc., that are legally permissible to exist on such agricultural land,and certified to be existing on agricultural land as on the date of acquisition by the competent authority, the affected petitioners are entitled to monetary compensation for such structures/standing crops/trees, as the case may be; and the petitioners can agitate their grievance if any with regard to insufficiency of pecuniary compensation for land, or compensation for legally permissible structures or standing crops etc., before the arbitrator, and that writ petition cannot be used to bypass the statutory mechanisms.

12. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kushala Shetty ((2011) 12 SCC 69), wherein it was held as follows:

               “24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the field of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relevant factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides.”

13. Further, it would be relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.774 of 2024, dated 07.08.2024, which is an appeal filed challenging a Notification for laying a national highway. The Hon’ble Division Bench, by referring to various precedent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, more particularly Kushala Shetty (supra), held as follows:

               “12. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is evident that the projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of existing highways are vital for development of infrastructure of the country. The projects have been entrusted to the experts in the field of highways and it comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and maintenance. The NHAI is implementing the project relating to development and maintenance after thorough study by experts.

               13. It is pertinent to note that in pursuance of the notification issued under the Act, award has already been passed on 10.05.2022 and petitioners No.8 and 11 in W.P.No.24150 of 2021 have even received the compensation. The project is virtually complete except for a small stretch.”

14. In this connection, it is to be noted that under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, determination of compensation is entrusted to the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA). Significantly, Section 3G(5) expressly provides that where the amount determined by the Competent Authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, the matter shall, on application, be referred to the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government—ordinarily the District Collector. Thus, the statute itself creates a complete adjudicatory mechanism for redressal of disputes relating to compensation.

15. Further, once the Arbitrator renders an award under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, such award is governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; and the persons aggrieved by the arbitral award has a further statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the competent Civil Court.

16. Though the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, its invocation comes with the rider that there should be exceptional circumstances, warranting invocation under Article 226 bypassing the statutory remedy. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998 (8) SCC 1), wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:

               “15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.”

17. In the instant writ petition, this Court does not find any violation of fundamental rights per se, or any violation of the principles of natural justice, or any jurisdictional error on the part of the respondent authorities; nor does the writ petition challenge the vires of the Act passed by the competent authority. Further, it is the specific unrebutted contention of the respondents, borne out by the record, that out of 1035 landowners whose lands were acquired or in process of acquisition, 859 landowners have already received compensation.

18. Though the petitioners do not challenge the acquisition, their grievance is about thedetermination and payment of rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the RFCTLARR framework as applied to acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956.Though the petitioners contend that they are entitled to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits, it cannot be disputed that the competent authority should have certified that a particular petitioner has been displaced and is entitled to resettlement and rehabilitation benefits.

19. Furthermore, in land acquisition proceedings of this nature, which is a larger public purpose, connecting highways across states, the grievance is justiciable by approaching the arbitration mechanism provided under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; and a writ remedy cannot be used to stall the project of this nature eternally, leading to project delays, thereby causing compounding loss to the exchequer.

20. Furthermore, the petitioners have a two-step statutory remedy, one under the National Highways Act, 1956 and, if still aggrieved, the second under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and therefore the petitioners are not remediless. It is not the case of either of the parties that they cannot adduce necessary documentary material with regard to the claim of rehabilitation and resettlement, apart from certification if any done by the competent authority with regard to the alleged displacement of the petitioners.

21. In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kushala Shetty (supra), and Whirlpool Corporation (supra), and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A. No.774 of 2024, dated 07.08.2024, this Court does not find any exceptional circumstances to entertain the writ petitionbypassing the statutory arbitration mechanism provided under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

22. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, relegating the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 and thereafter, if necessary, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. No costs. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.