1 2025:CGHC:29659 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1755 of 2025 1 - Md. Idrish S/o Late Md. Ilyas Aged About 79 Years R/o Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District - Sarguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Md. Saroj Ansari S/o Late Md. Ilyas Aged About 52 Years R/o Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 3 - Md. Parvez Ansari S/o Md. Qasim Aged About 61 Years R/o Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 4 - Md. Altaf Ansari S/o Md. Qasim Aged About 52 Years R/o Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 5 - Md. Javed Ansari S/o Md. Qasim Aged About 50 Years R/o Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 6 - Md. Aftaf Ansari S/o Md. Qasim Aged About 46 Years R/o Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 7 - Manzar Nafis S/o Md. Siddiqui Aged About 48 Years R/o Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 8 - Sanjar Ansari S/o Md. Siddiqui Aged About 45 Years R/o Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Zone Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Executive Engineer Public Works Department, National Highway Division With Nhdup N PIU Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. 3 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue/ Competent Authority) Land Acquisition Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 01.07.2025 1. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that petitioners have an efficacious alternate remedy to approach before the District Court under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘Act of 1996’) for execution of the arbitration award passed by the Arbitrator/Commissioner. 2. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file an application under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 before the appropriate Forum/District Court for execution of the arbitration award. 3. In view of above, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. CC as per rules. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-