Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4912-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 621 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sury Narayan Verma And 32 Others Respondent :- The Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways Thru. Its Secy. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for NHAI and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Considering the issue involved, we see no need to call for a counter affidavit in the matter as there is not much of a factual dispute. 3. The facts in brief are that land of the petitioners was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act, 1956'). The compensation amount was determined by the competent authority under Section 3G of the Act, 1956, which was paid to the petitioners, however in the interregnum or thereafter the said determination was put to challenge by the National Highway Authority in 2018 by initiating arbitration proceedings under Section 3G(5) of the Act, 1956. The said arbitration proceedings culminated in an award, wherein the rate of interest was reduced consequent to which it was found that excess amount has been paid to the petitioners as compensation, now it is the said amount which is to be recovered. In the meantime, the petitioners claim to have challenged the award of the arbitrator before the competent court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996. In the meantime, a letter has been issued by the concerned authority, which is addressed to the Collector, Sultanpur for recovery of the aforesaid amount as arrears of land revenue whereupon the citation of recovery has been issued by the Revenue Authority. 4. The contention is that recovery of this amount apart from the fact that it is subjudice in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, even otherwise is not permissible for the reason that there is a provision for execution of the award of the arbitrator in terms of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 5. Even if the amount determined by the competent authority under Section 3G of the Act, 1956 was altered in arbitration proceedings by the award rendered by the arbitrator and consequent to it any amount already paid as compensation to the petitioner was liable to be recovered, there is no provision for recovery of the same as arrears of land revenue as is being sought to be done. The only course of action open to the opposite parties, if otherwise permissible in law, is to initiate proceedings for execution of the award of the arbitrator. 6. In view of the above, we quash the impugned recovery proceedings, however, with liberty to the opposite parties to initiate proceedings as may be permissible in law. 7. The writ petition is allowed. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 S. Kumar Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SANTOSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench