Yatish Kumar v. Jagannath Singh, Km. Nisha Singh, Surendra Nath Singh

Heard Shri Jagannath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri R.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent no.1-Union of India and Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for National Highways Authority of India (in short "NHAI").

The instant writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no3 to enhance the amount of compensation on the basis of the nature of land being non agricultural/ residential/ commercial instead of agricultural land at the circle rate of Rs.11,000/- per sq. metre for his acquired plot no.183 area 0.0736 hectare = 736 sq. metre situated in Village Dorma Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi in pursuance of order dated

02.01.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 (Annexure No.1) to the writ petition and form 11 prepared by the respondent no.2 (Annexure No.2) to the writ petition. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3 to pass the order for payment of interest on all the amount due to the petitioner fixing the valuation at Rs.11,000/- per sq. metre of the petitioner's above acquired plot no.183 area 0.0736 hectare = 736 sq. metre situated in village Dorma Tehsil Sirathu, District Kaushambi. "

At the outset, Shri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for NHAI has raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the premise that the petitioner, aggrieved with the order of the competent 2 WRIC No. 37066 of 2025 authority dated 15.5.2018, had preferred Arbitration Case No.61/70/2019 (Yatish Kumar v. State of U.P.), though the order dated 15.5.2018 was already set aside by the High Court vide judgment and order dated

26.2.2020. In this backdrop, the said arbitration case was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 19.7.2025 leaving it open to the petitioner to move application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (in short "Arbitration Act") well within limitation. He submits that once the leave is already accorded, the writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. He submits that as per the provisions contained under Section 3 G (6) of the Arbitration Act, the Arbitration Act is applicable under the acquisitions made by NHAI. As such it is submitted that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

Considering the factual situation as well as the categorical objection raised by learned counsel for NHAI, we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to press appropriate application under Section 34 of Arbitration Act in accordance with law.