Land Acquisition Arbitration and Writ Jurisdiction: Constitutional Limitations in the Wake of Suryadev Pathak vs. Union of India

The recent judgment in Suryadev Pathak vs. Union of India before the Allahabad High Court presents a significant exposition on the jurisdictional limitations of constitutional courts when statutory remedies exist under specialized legislation. This case, bearing citation Writ-C No. 28215 of 2025, emerged from a land acquisition dispute involving the Bharat Mala Scheme for National Highway development.

The petitioner, Suryadev Pathak, a landowner from Gorakhpur, found himself embroiled in a compensation dispute following the acquisition of his multiple land parcels under the National Highways Act, 1956 for the widening of National Highway No. 29E. The acquisition was undertaken by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) as part of the broader infrastructure development initiative, with the Union of India and State of Uttar Pradesh serving as co-respondents in the proceedings.

The genesis of the dispute lay in Pathak’s dissatisfaction with the compensation amount determined by the acquiring authorities, which he perceived as arbitrarily inadequate. Consequently, he invoked the arbitration mechanism provided under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, seeking enhanced compensation through the prescribed dispute resolution framework.

The procedural complexity manifested when the appointed arbitrator failed to render a decision for over two years, prompting Pathak to approach the High Court seeking mandamus for expeditious resolution. His petition was grounded on the fundamental premise that the prolonged delay constituted a violation of his constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21, particularly the right to speedy justice as an integral component of life.

Pathak’s legal strategy encompassed multiple constitutional arguments. He contended that his property rights under Article 300-A were compromised due to alleged non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 during the acquisition process. Furthermore, he asserted that the absence of effective alternative remedies necessitated the invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The respondents’ defence strategy cantered on jurisdictional challenges to the High Court’s authority in arbitration matters. They argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to mandate arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, given its absence of ordinary original civil jurisdiction in such matters. The respondents emphasized that the Arbitration Act provides a comprehensive statutory framework for addressing arbitral delays, with specific provisions for timeline extensions that can only be granted by designated civil courts rather than constitutional courts.

Additionally, the respondents attributed the delays to the petitioner’s own conduct, citing instances of repeated adjournments and applications that contributed to the protracted proceedings. This argument sought to establish that the delay was not systemic but rather a consequence of the petitioner’s procedural choices.

The High Court’s analysis focused on two critical legal issues: the maintainability of writ jurisdiction when alternative statutory remedies exist, and the validity of mandating arbitral proceedings after the expiration of statutory timelines. The court examined the legislative intent behind Section 29A of the Arbitration Act, which establishes clear temporal boundaries for arbitral authority.

The judicial reasoning emphasized that when statutory timelines prescribed under the Arbitration Act expire, the arbitrator’s mandate is extinguished by operation of law. Any subsequent proceedings must be adjudicated by competent civil courts rather than through constitutional writ jurisdiction. The court reinforced the principle that judicial intervention through extraordinary writs cannot override specific statutory remedies, as such intervention would undermine the legislative scheme and potentially encourage forum shopping.

The court’s decision traversed several judicial precedents to establish that writ jurisdiction, despite its broad scope under Article 226, is not unlimited and must yield to specific statutory frameworks designed to address particular types of disputes. The judgment highlights the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides adequate safeguards and remedies for addressing delays in arbitral proceedings through designated civil courts.

In its final determination, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition, establishing three fundamental principles. First, arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act are governed by the comprehensive framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Second, constitutional courts cannot exercise writ jurisdiction when specific and efficacious statutory remedies exist for addressing the grievance. Third, following the expiration of an arbitrator’s mandate, only competent civil courts possess the authority to extend timelines for arbitration proceedings.

This judgment represents a crucial clarification of jurisdictional boundaries in the context of infrastructure development and land acquisition disputes. It reinforces the principle that statutory schemes must be allowed to operate within their intended framework without interference from parallel constitutional remedies. The decision provides valuable guidance for future litigants in similar circumstances, emphasizing the importance of pursuing appropriate statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary constitutional intervention.

The case ultimately demonstrates the courts’ commitment to maintaining the integrity of specialized legislative frameworks while ensuring that constitutional rights are protected through appropriate channels. It establishes a clear roadmap for resolving compensation disputes arising from infrastructure development projects, emphasizing the primacy of statutory arbitration mechanisms over extraordinary constitutional remedies.

For further details write to contact@indialaw.in