Mandatory newspaper notice before compensation determination vitiates the award and permits writ relief despite alternative remedy.
The acquisition notification under the National Highways Act, 1956 was upheld because the challenge based on expiry of the time limit under Sections 3-A and 3-D was rejected on the facts and the notification was found to be in order. However, the compensation award was quashed to the extent challenged because Section 3-G required prior publication of notice in two newspapers and an opportunity to object before determination of compensation, and the record did not show compliance. That statutory breach also amounted to a violation of natural justice, so the writ petition was maintainable despite the alternative remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Liberty was left to raise objections and have the matter decided afresh in accordance with law.
Issues: (i) Whether the notification and acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956 had ceased or were liable to be quashed for breach of the prescribed time limit under Sections 3-A and 3-D. (ii) Whether the award of compensation was invalid for want of publication of notice and opportunity of objection under Section 3-G, and whether the writ petition was barred by the alternative remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Issue (i): Whether the notification and acquisition proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956 had ceased or were liable to be quashed for breach of the prescribed time limit under Sections 3-A and 3-D.
Analysis: The notification under Section 3-D was found to be in order and consistent with the scheme of Sections 3-A and 3-D. The contention based on expiry of time was held to rest on an incorrect calculation. On the facts, the acquisition notification did not lapse.
Conclusion: The challenge to the acquisition proceedings failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the award of compensation was invalid for want of publication of notice and opportunity of objection under Section 3-G, and whether the writ petition was barred by the alternative remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Analysis: The Court held that publication of notice in two newspapers was a statutory requirement under Section 3-G before making the compensation award. The record did not show compliance with that requirement, and the notification relied upon by the respondents was only a Section 3-D notification, not a Section 3-G notice. The omission amounted to a violation of natural justice. In view of that statutory breach, the petitioner was not relegated to the alternative remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Conclusion: The compensation award was quashed to the extent challenged, and the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the alternative remedy.
Final Conclusion: The acquisition notifications were sustained, but the compensation award was set aside for non-compliance with the mandatory notice requirement, with liberty to raise objections and have the matter decided afresh in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes prior newspaper publication and opportunity of objection mandatory before determination of compensation, non-compliance vitiates the award and justifies writ relief despite the existence of an alternative statutory remedy.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
