The genesis of the dispute lies in a notification dated 28.07.2006 issued by the Central Government under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 ("NH Act"), acquiring land in Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. While some

The facts of the given situation is based on case law between Hariram & Ors v. National Highway Authority of India & Ors. decided by Supreme Court on 4th April, 2025. In view of the decision in this case, a writ petition cannot be construed as an "earlier application" under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The primary ground of the petitioner's claim of jurisdiction in the present petition, is the invocation of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act). Section 42 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or in any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this Part has been made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. In the present case, the previous proceedings were in the nature of a writ petition. It is apposite to state that a writ petition cannot be construed as an "earlier application" under Section 42 of the Arbitration Act to decide jurisdiction as the very nature of a writ petition is to challenge an administrative action or a legal decision, not to initiate arbitration proceedings; Section 42 specifically refers to an "application made in a Court with respect to an arbitration agreement," which implies an initial application to commence or regulate arbitration, rather than a challenge to an existing decision. Citing the judgment in Dipankar Singh & Ors. v. UOI through NHAI, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11121 , the Court reiterated that a Writ Petition cannot be equated with an application under Part I of the Arbitration Act. In that case, too, it was held that despite parties approaching the Delhi High Court under Writ jurisdiction, only the courts where the arbitral proceedings took place had jurisdiction under Section 34. The Court clarified that Section 42 applies strictly to applications made "with respect to an arbitration agreement" under the Arbitration Act, such as those under Sections 9, 11, or 34, not to writ petitions under Article 226 or 227.