Limited Remedy Available Under S. 34 Of A&C Act Against Award Of Compensation Under NHA, Is Not A Ground To Invoke HC’s Writ Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court
Case: M/s Omanand Industries & Anr. vs The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
Coram: Justice Avinash G. Gharot
Case No.: Writ Petition No.6850/2022
Court Observation: “The determination of the compensation by the Arbitrator under Section 3-G (5) of the N.H. Act is then open to further scrutiny, by the Court under Section 34 of the A & C Act which, in turn, is susceptible to a further challenge under Section 37 of the A &; C Act, which, in turn, can be carried to the Hon’ble Apex Court in a petition for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”
“It is, thus, apparent that there are as many as five opportunities provided to the landowner whose land is acquired under the N.H. Act, to question the grant of compensation awarded to him,”
The Court added that the absence of a remedy and the limited scope of a remedy are two different things altogether. “This is not a case of absence of remedy as a remedy is provided as indicated above. This is therefore a case where the limited scope of the remedy as provided, is being pleaded.
Previous Posts
Related Articles
- Can Exercise Writ Jurisdiction against Private Party That Wrongly Benefits From Inaction of Public Authorities in Discharge of Public Duty: Bombay HC
- Under the Wildlife Protection Act, the Bombay High Court dismissed cases against a pharmaceutical company, ruling that the cancer drug Camptothecin is not considered forest produce, bringing an end to a legal battle that persisted for 16 years
- NI Act| Company’s Authorized Signatory Not “Drawer” Of Cheque, Not Liable To Pay Interim Compensation Under Sec.143A: Bombay High Court
