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

In the case of Hariram & Ors v. National Highway Authority of India & Ors. the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that territorial jurisdiction lies with the court within whose jurisdiction the subject matter of the suit is situated, as well as the courts within whose jurisdiction the dispute resolution process, i.e., arbitration, is conducted. Furthermore, it has been consistently held that the moment the seat of arbitration is designated, it is akin to an exclusive jurisdiction clause. The legislature has intentionally given jurisdiction to two courts i.e. the court which would have jurisdiction where the cause of action is located and the courts where the arbitration takes place. This was necessary as on many occasions the agreement may provide for a seat of arbitration at a place which would be neutral to both the parties. Therefore, the courts where the arbitration takes place would be required to exercise supervisory control over the arbitral process. In National Highway Authority of India and Another v. Jagpal Singh Allahabad High Court held that under National Highway Act, Sections 3G(5)/3G(7) arbitration by District Collector occurs where land/proceedings are located (Baghpat, UP); thus, Baghpat civil court has exclusive jurisdiction for Section 34, not Delhi High Court despite NHAI HQ or prior writ. The Supreme Court has clarified that where arbitration is triggered under a special statute, such as Sections 3G(5) and 3G(7) of the National Highways Act, the determination of jurisdiction to be guided by: The place where the arbitration proceedings are conducted, The location of the subject matter (i.e., the acquired land), The court which would ordinarily have jurisdiction over the arbitral award under Section 34. Section 42 does not override the jurisdictional scheme of a special statute, nor does it permit forum selection based on prior constitutional proceedings. Its application is limited to ensuring procedural certainty within arbitration proceedings governed by the Arbitration Act, not to expand jurisdiction on the basis of writ litigation.