Writ Court ordinarily should not exercise its writ jurisdiction in case effective alternative remedy is available: HC

Read Order: Kuldeep Singh and Ors v. Union of India and others 

LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, July 19, 2021: While dismissing a writ petition on an issue of compensation in a compulsory land acquisition case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a writ court ordinarily should not exercise its writ jurisdiction in case an effective alternative remedy is available.

Through as many as three petitions, the petitioners — owners of the land which was the subject matter of compulsory acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956, — prayed for enforcement of the award passed by the Arbitrator while enhancing the amount of compensation in excess of what was awarded by the competent authority.

Citing ‘Anu Garg @ Anu Jain vs. Union of India and others’ decided on 14.07.2021, the high court held that by virtue of sub-section 6 of Section 3G of the Act of 1956 read with Section 36 of the Act of 1996, the award passed by the Arbitrator can be enforced or got implemented as if it is a decree of the court in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

A bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal observed that normally, whenever the amount is payable for compulsory acquisition of land, the same is required to be paid with solatium and interest. 

As per the recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh and others, Section 3J of the Act of 1956 has been struck down. It has been held that in case of acquisition under the 1956 Act, the owners shall be entitled to solatium and interest. Hence, the amount payable under the award of the Arbitrator is required to be calculated, the HC said. 

“The question is whether the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction should entertain writ petitions, even if the land owners have equally efficacious remedy of an execution petition, before the court of law,” the bench said.

“Once the petitioners have an equally efficacious alternative remedy before the District Court, it would not be appropriate to enforce the award of the Arbitrator by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court is a discretionary jurisdiction. It is well settled that the writ Court ordinarily should not exercise its writ jurisdiction in case effective alternative remedy is available. Still further, the dispute with regard to the calculation of the appropriate amount of compensation which now includes solatium and interest shall be required to be calculated and determined. Hence, the District Court shall be the appropriate court,” the HC said.