The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.28681 of 2011 Date: 24.10.2011 Between: C.Chandra Sekhar ..... Petitioner AND 1.The Competent Authority & Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor District and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s.C.Yadagiri Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Land Acquisition Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Mr.S.S.Varma, SC for NHAI The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings bearing Rc.No.F/4607/2011, dated 23-09-2011, of respondent No.1. The petitioner is the owner of property in Survey Nos.34-1A and 2 situated within Potturu Municipality. In connection with the construction of four-lane road from Tirupathi to Tiruttini (National Highway 205 from KM 275/000 to KM 304/170 and from 304/170 to 341/600), a notification under Section 3A (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) was published. An award was passed in respect of the said property, and the notice of award was also issued to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation, as intimated in the notice of award, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri C.Yadagiri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that while fixing compensation, respondent No.1 has not taken into consideration the earnings of the petitioner, and that thereby, he failed to follow the mandatory provision contained in Section 3G (7) (c) of the Act. After considering this submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that this Writ Petition is wholly misconceived for two reasons. Firstly, in order to appreciate the plea of the petitioner, perusal of the award is necessary. Unless, this Court is aware of the contents of the award and the basis on which the compensation is fixed, it is not possible to adjudicate on the petitioner’s plea that respondent No.1 has violated the provisions of Section 3G (7) (c) of the Act. Secondly, even assuming that respondent No.1 has violated the said statutory provision, under Section 3G (5) of the Act, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of seeking determination of compensation by the Arbitrator, if the compensation fixed by respondent No.1 is not acceptable to him. In the face of availability of such an effective alternative remedy, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under 226 of the Constitution of India. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.35435 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 24th October, 2011 LUR