1 2025:CGHC:11057 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1456 of 2022 1 - Smt. Shekh Shahnaj Begam W/o Shekh Fakira Mohammad Aged About 51 Years R/o A-1, White House, Vaishali Nagar Phase- 1, Shrikant Varma Marg, Link Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union Of India Through The Central Secretary/ Chairperson, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Government Of India, G 5 And 6, Dabri- Gurgaon Road, Sector 10 Dwarika, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 3 - The National Highway Authority Of India (Nhai) Through The Chief Engineer, National Highway Campus, Janta Colony, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Project Director National Highways Authority Of India, D-61, Hig-1 (Akash), Abhilasha Parisar, Behind Hi-Tech Bus Stand Tifra Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Collector (Land Acquisition) Bilaspur, Collectorate Building Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6 - The Sub Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.03.07 18:45:16 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Resp No.1 : Mr. Bhupendra Pandey, Central Govt. Counsel For State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, PL For Resp. No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondents’ authority to comply with the order dated 03/09/2019 (Annexure-P/1) read with order dated 23/11/2019 (Annexure-P/2) passed by the Arbitrator, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that the order dated 03/09/2019 read with the order dated 23/11/2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner/Arbitrator is under challenge in an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1996’) bearing MJC No. 74/2021 before the District Judge, Bilaspur. Relying on the judgment of this Court in the matter of National highways Authority of India through- Project Director, Project Implementation Unit and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and Other1, he would submit that since the order impugned is under challenge in the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable. 1 2022 SCC OnLine Chh 1629 3 3. In view of the above submission, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that this petition may be disposed of with a direction to the learned District Judge, Bilaspur to consider the application filed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 within a stipulated period. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the reply of respondent No.4. 5. From the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.4 as well as reply filed by it, it appears that the compliance of the order which has been sought for by petitioner, is under challenge in the proceeding under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur. 6. In the matter of National highways Authority of India (Supra), this Court has held at paragraph 10 & 11 as under:- “10. In the case of National Highways Authority of India v. Sheetal Jaidev Vade, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1070, the facts were to the effect that in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court had directed the NHAI to deposit the entire compensation amount as awarded by the Arbitrator and permitted the original land owners/original writ petitioners to withdraw the amount. In the writ petition, following reliefs were sought for: "(a) This Writ Petition may kindly be allowed. (b) That, by way of writ of mandamus of the direction like in nature the respondents No. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed to deposit the amount with respondent No. 3 in pursuance of the award dated 12.06.2018 vide NO. 2016/LA/NH-351/CR- 4 01 passed by the respondent No. 3 forthwith. (c) That, by way of writ of mandamus of the directions like in nature the respondent No. 3 may kindly be directed to make the payment to petitioners forthwith after the respondents No. 1 and 2 deposit the amount." 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-11 has observed that the reliefs which have been sought for by the writ petitioners were in the nature of execution of the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court. In paragraphs-12 & 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "12. Apart from the fact that the award dated 12.06.2018 has been challenged by the NHAI by initiating proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act which are reported to be pending, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the reliefs to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, when the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court is to be executed by initiating an execution proceeding before the concerned Executing Court. But, by passing the impugned order/directions the High Court has virtually converted itself into Executing Court. Therefore, once the original writ petitioner was having an efficacious, alternative remedy to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, by initiating an appropriate execution proceeding before the competent Executing Court, the High Court ought to have relegated the original writ petitioners to avail the said remedy instead of entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was filed to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court. If the High Courts convert itself to the Executing Court and entertain the writ petitions under 5 Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court, the High Courts would be flooded with the writ petitions to execute awards passed by the learned Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitral Court.” 7. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner had sought for execution of the award, whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sheetal Jaidev (Supra) deprecated entertainment of such writ petitions instead of relegating the petitioners to avail alternative efficacious remedy available as, if the High Courts entertain such petitions, the High Courts would convert themselves to executing Court. 8. In view of the above settled legal preposition, the writ petition is disposed of. However, as the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 which was filed on 14/12/2020, is pending before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, hence, this Court hopes and expects that the said application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 shall be considered and decided by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur within a stipulated period of 6 months. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul