Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the District Collector dated 18.7.2012, which as per Sec. 3 -G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 has been made by the District Collector as Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents who have put in their appearance. Shri Anurag Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -National Highways Authority has raised the objection about maintainability of the writ petition citing the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nekkalapudi Ramakrishna Pratap vs. the District Collector -cum -Arbitrator, : AIR 2006 AP 136 wherein it was held that according to sub -sec. (6) of Sec. 3 -G of the said Act once the award is passed, remedy of the aggrieved person is to file objections u/s. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and writ petition would not be maintainable.
(2.) SHRI Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submitted that since in this case award of acquisition was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, therefore the objections of the petitioner filed before the Collector should be deemed to be objections filed under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Filing of the writ petition, therefore, would not be barred. I am not inclined to accept this argument because the award that was passed by the competent authority under Sec. 3 -G(3) is an award of acquisition of land and, therefore, the word "award" cannot be confused with the "award" passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. That would mean that immediately after the reference is made to the Arbitrator by the Central Government, if the amount determined by the competent authority under sub -sec. (1) or sub -sec. (2) of Sec. 3 -G of the Act is not acceptable to either of the parties, unlike in the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, the Arbitrator in this case can either enhance the compensation at the instance of the land owner or reduce the same at the instance of National Highway Authority. In the scope of Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, however, the civil Court has power to only enhance the compensation under the award. Therefore, what is decided by the Collector has to be held to be an award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. If either of the parties is dissatisfied by the authority passed by the District Collector, the proper remedy for it is to file objections under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration Act. This issue has been dealt with and decided by the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nekkalapudi Ramakrishna Pratap, supra, paras 3 and 4 of which judgment are reproduced for the purpose of reference: 3. When the land is acquired under the Act, the competent authority shall determine the amount which shall be payable to the landowners in accordance with the principles contained in sub -sec. (7) of Sec. 3 -G of the Act, the aggrieved person may approach the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government in accordance with Sec. 3 -G(5) of the Act. The Act provides that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act") shall apply to every arbitration under the Act. In this case, there is no denial that the District Collector is appointed by the Central Government as Arbitrator for the purpose of redetermination under Sec. 3 -G(5) of the Act. Applying the procedure under the Arbitration Act, therefore, a person aggrieved by the proceedings of the Arbitrator under Sec. 3 -G(5) of the Act has to necessarily invoke the provisions of S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, and a writ petition is not a proper remedy.
(3.) IT is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Land Acquisition) that as per Sec. 3 -J of the Act the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, shall not apply for the acquisition under the Act, and therefore, Sec. 3 -G of the Act alone is a comprehensive provision. If any person is aggrieved by the compensation determined or redetermined by the authorities under Sec. 3 -G(3) of the Act or 3 -G(5) of the Act, a remedy lies under Arbitration Act, and in a writ petition this question cannot be adjudicated. It is settled law that when statute provides for depriving a citizen of his/her rights and also provides the necessary procedure to be followed for redressal of such grievance, the same procedure should be followed. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage has submitted that petitioner should not be rendered remedyless because he filed writ petition on 6.10.2012 within 90 days whereas limitation for filing of objections under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration Act is only 90 days which has since expired, therefore, his prayer is that if eventually objections filed by the petitioners are dismissed by the Court of District Judge, Bundi as time barred, the great prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.;