THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22409 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not following the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’) strictly in accordance with law, as illegal and arbitrary, and it questions award, dated 31.07.2010, passed in proceedings No.C/1344/2010, by the first respondent – Competent Authority NH-9 & Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. Lands of the petitioner and structures existed thereon were notified under the provisions of the Act, for the public purpose of 4/6 laning of National Highway No.9 (Hyderabad to Vijayawada Section). The first respondent in exercise of power under Section 3G(1) of the Act, passed award fixing the compensation payable to the petitioner for acquisition of its lands and structures covered by Survey Nos.337 and 338. It is stated that compensation of Rs.3,50,202/- and Rs.3,11,836/- was awarded for the structures in the lands covered by Survey Nos.337 and 338. The impugned award was questioned disputing the quantum of compensation. It is alleged that while fixing the compensation, the first respondent has not given any specification to the structures, land and machinery values separately. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.3 - General Manager (Tech) & in-charge Project Director for National Highways Authority of India. While denying various allegations levelled by the petitioner, it is stated therein that there is an effective alternative remedy available to the petitioner under the provisions of the Act. It is further stated that the District Collector, Nalgonda, was appointed as Arbitrator by the Government of India vide order bearing No.NHAI/LA/RR/2001/9, dated 16.09.2009. It is also stated that if the petitioner is disputing the compensation, it can as well make a claim before the Arbitrator under Section 3G(5) of the Act. As per the provision under Section 3G(5) of the Act, if the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section 1 or sub- section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application by either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. In this case, it is already stated in the counter-affidavit that the District Collector, Nalgonda, was appointed as Arbitrator by the Government of India vide order bearing No.NHAI/LA/RR/2001/9, dated 16.09.2009. In view of effective alternative remedy of approaching the Arbitrator is available to the petitioner and as much as it is stated that the District Collector, Nalgonda, was appointed as Arbitrator by order, dated 16.09.2009, there is no reason to entertain this writ petition at this stage. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to approach the Arbitrator, if it is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded to it in the impugned award. It is made clear that if any such claim is made, I am sure, the Arbitrator will look into the matter and consider it in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th OCTOBER, 2010. kvni