THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.26647 of 2006 Between:
Adusumilli Ratnabhushana Rao PETITIONER AND
1. The Arbitrator and the Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, and another.
RESPONDENTS ORDER:
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the proceedings of the 1st respondent in R. Dis.55/01, dated 19.05.2003, under the provisions of National High Ways Act 1956 (‘the Act’ for brevity).
2. Heard Sri G. Vijaya Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Varma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for National High Way Authority of India.
3. An extent of 262 sq. mts., of vacant site having a terraced building of the petitioner and his brother, was acquired by the 2nd respondent herein for the purpose of widening of N.H.5 road at Tallamudi Village of Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. The matter was referred under Sections 3 & 5 of the Act to the Arbitrator and District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, the 1st respondent herein. The Arbitrator/District Collector by way of the impugned proceedings R.Dis.55/2001, dated 19.05.2003 enhanced the compensation. Challenging the said proceedings and while contending that the Arbitrator/District Collector did not properly enhance the compensation, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Responding to Rule Nisi issued by this Court, a counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent, denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.
5. During the course of arguments, a preliminary objection is raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the National High Way Authority of India, that in view of the judgment of this Court in Nekkalapudi Ramakrishna Pratap v. The District Collector-cum-
[1]
Arbitrator, West Godavari District and anr. , this writ petition is not maintainable and in view of the availability of alternative remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1956, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel has placed a copy of the said judgment on record. Therefore, this Court does not propose to go into the various contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition on merits.
5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file appropriate application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1956 before the appropriate Civil Court, questioning the orders impugned in the present writ petition, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI.
12th June, 2014 Js.
[1] 2006 AP 136