APHC010374042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3549] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1823/2025 Between: 1. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, (BOT), NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA VIJAYAWADA OFFICE AT- PLOT NO 74, VANAMALI BUILDING NEAR NAC KALYANA VEDIKA, COMMERICAL TAXES COLONY, VIJAYAWADA ...PETITIONER AND 1. BOYAPATI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O RAMA MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O BAHUBALENDRUNIGUDEM VILLAGE, GANNAVARAM MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. THE SUBCOLLECTOR CUMCOMPETENT AUTHORITY, (LAND ACQUISITION) NUZVID, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S S VARMA AND CO. Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Mr. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY NJS,J & GTK,J C.R.P No.1823 of 2025 2 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble NJS,J) Aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2025 in E.P.No.741 of 2021 in A.O.P.No.226 of 2018 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, the present Revision Petition came to be filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/Judgment Debtor No.2 and learned counsel for the respondent/Decree holder. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that under the provisions of the National Highways Act (for short ‘the Act’), the land of the respondent was acquired and the Competent Authority (CALA) determined the compensation under Section 3 G (1) of the said Act and having dissatisfied with the same, the respondent approached the learned Arbitrator & Joint Collector, who inturn enhanced the compensation vide Award dated 29.06.2019. He submits that against the said Award, both the petitioner as well as the respondent filed Original Petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, that while the said O.Ps., are pending, the respondent herein initiated Execution Proceedings and without appreciating the matter in the correct perspective, the E.P., in question was allowed. 4. The learned counsel submits that when the respondent/decree holder himself had preferred an O.P., against the Award of the Arbitrator, the learned Executing Court ought to have appreciated that the Award has not attained finality and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to execute the Award. While stating that in compliance with the interim order dated 24.07.2025, 1/3rd NJS,J & GTK,J C.R.P No.1823 of 2025 3 of the decretal amount along with costs was deposited, the learned counsel seeks to set aside the order under challenge. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions to sustain the impugned order. While not disputing the statement that the respondent preferred O.P., under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the Award of the Arbitrator, the learned counsel would contend that as the Award of the Arbitrator was not stayed, the execution proceedings were initiated and the order of the Executing Court cannot be found fault with. He, accordingly, seeks dismissal of the Revision Petition. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the order under challenge. 7. At the outset, it may be noted that against the Award of the learned Arbitrator under Section 3G (5) of the National Highways Act, both sides have filed O.Ps., under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The learned Executing Court dealing with the aspect of the respondent/decree holder’s entitlement to seek execution of the Award when the same was under challenge in the O.P., filed by the respondent by a cryptic order, allowed the E.P., in a slipshod manner. No cogent reasons were assigned and the order under challenge is liable to be set aside on these grounds. 8. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in compliance with the interim orders of this Court dated 24.07.2025, 1/3rd of the E.P. amount has already been deposited, instead of NJS,J & GTK,J C.R.P No.1823 of 2025 4 remanding the matter for passing orders afresh, this Court deems it appropriate, more particularly as the O.Ps., were filed long back, to direct the learned District Judge to dispose of the O.Ps., filed by the respective parties while making the interim order absolute. 9. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is disposed of, providing that the learned District Court shall make endeavour to dispose of the A.O.Ps., filed by the parties herein, strictly in accordance with the Law, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of eight (8) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The interim order granted by this Court shall remain in operation till the disposal of the O.Ps. Further, considering the submission that the stakes involved in the matter are very low and the respondent who lost his land long back had not received even the compensation as determined by the Competent Authority (CALA), this Court deems it appropriate to permit the respondent to withdraw the 1/3rd amount deposited pursuant to the orders of this Court referred to supra. Needless to observe that in the event, the petitioner succeeds in the Arbitration O.Ps., it is entitled to recover the excess amounts, if any paid, in accordance with the Law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA ____________________________ JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA Date:23.09.2025 Ksj