The Delhi High Court has clarified that a writ petition cannot be treated as an "earlier application" under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when determining jurisdiction for arbitration-related matters.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri made it clear that:
“A writ petition is meant to challenge administrative or legal decisions, not to commence or regulate arbitration proceedings.”
Section 42 of the Arbitration Act talks about an "application made in a court with respect to an arbitration agreement." This refers to a formal application under the Act, not a writ petition under constitutional jurisdiction.
Background of the Case
In 2006, the Central Government issued a notification dated 28.07.2006 for acquiring land from Baghpat Division to Baghpat District in Uttar Pradesh under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
While part of the land was acquired lawfully, possession of another portion was taken without any acquisition process, via a notification issued on 08.02.2007. Due to non-payment of compensation, the landowners, including the Petitioners, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. They sought quashing of both notifications and demanded compensation or additional compensation for the land acquired.
Later, based on the court's decision in the writ petition, the landowners received the original compensation as per the 2006 market value. This compensation was granted via an order dated 27.05.2019 by the District Collector of Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.
Still dissatisfied with the compensation, the landowners initiated proceedings under Section 3G(5) and 3G(7) of the National Highways Act before the District Collector, Division Meerut, seeking enhanced compensation. However, the suit (Suit No. 00747 of 2019) was dismissed through an award dated 16.10.2020.
The Petitioners then approached the Delhi High Court again, this time by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to challenge the award.
The Respondents immediately raised an objection regarding jurisdiction. Their main arguments were:
- The disputed land is in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh.
- The original compensation was granted by the District Collector of Baghpat.
- The arbitral proceedings also took place in Baghpat under the National Highways Act.
Thus, according to them, the Delhi High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the Section 34 petition.
The Petitioners argued that:
- The land acquisition was done by the Central Government.
- Respondent No.1 (NHAI) has its headquarters in Delhi.
- They had earlier filed a writ petition (W.P. No. 11920/2016) in the Delhi High Court, which was entertained, and relief was granted.
Therefore, they claimed that this previous writ petition qualified as an “earlier application” under Section 42, giving the Delhi High Court exclusive jurisdiction over the present matter.
The High Court carefully examined the legal provisions and facts. It held that:
“The relevant court under Section 2 of the Arbitration Act is one which would have jurisdiction over the subject matter if it had been the subject of a suit.”
Since all arbitration proceedings happened in Baghpat, and the disputed land is also in Baghpat, the Delhi High Court found no territorial jurisdiction over the matter.
Further, the court clarified:
“The previous proceedings were in the nature of a writ petition. A writ petition cannot be construed as an ‘earlier application’ under Section 42 of the Arbitration Act.”
To support this view, the Court relied on a previous decision in Dipankar Singh & Others v. Union of India through NHAI, 2019 SCC Online Del 11121. In that case, the court held that since the land and arbitration proceedings were located in Saharanpur, U.P., only courts in Saharanpur had jurisdiction.
The High Court concluded that:
“Since the land is located in Baghpat and all arbitration proceedings took place there, only the courts having jurisdiction over Baghpat are competent to hear a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.”
The Delhi High Court thus dismissed the petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Consequently, the present petition stood dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Case Title – Hariram & Ors. V. NHAI
Case No. – O.M.P. (COMM) 86/2021
Appearance-
For Petitioner - Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Mr. Parinav Gupta and Mr. Harshvardhan Lodhi
For Respondent - Mr. Akshay Kumar Tiwari and Ms. Shubhi Dhiman, Advocates for R-1 & R-2.
Date – 04.04.2025
