2026:JHHC:21159 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5036 of 2026 ------- Birenchi Ram, aged about 64 years, Son of Late Parmeshwar Ram, Resident of Village: Ahipurwa, P.O. & P.S.: Nagar Untari, District - Garhwa, Jharkhand. .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, having its Office at Collectorate Building Garhwa, P.O. & P.S.: Garhwa, Jharkhand. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, having its office at Sub-Divisional Office, Nagar Untari, P.O. + P.S. Nagaruntari, District -Garhwa, Jharkhand. 4. The Circle Officer, Nagar Untari, P.O. + P.S. Nagaruntari, District -Garhwa, Jharkhand. 5. Moti Ram, Son of Late Matukdhari Ram, 6. Anil Ram, Son of Late Matukdhari Ram, 7. Suryadeo Ram, Son of Moti Ram, 8. Hardayal Ram, Son of Moti Ram, Sl. No. 5 to 8 are Resident of Village-Ahirpurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Nagar Untari, District-Garhwa, Jharkhand. … Respondents. ------- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I ------ 02/ 17.07.2026: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondent No.3 to implement the final order dated 26.06.2025 passed by the respondent No.3 in Misc. Case No.71 of 2021 and to ensure the removal of obstruction/ encroachment of the private parties placed over the disputed pathways, ensuring the petitioner’s right of easement is not violated. 3. Considering the prayer of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this Court is not an executing court to pass any order in this case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NHAI Vs. Sheetal Jaidev Vade, reported in (2022) 16 SCC 391 at paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12 has held as under: 10. Apart from the fact that the award dated 12-6-2018 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 executing court concerned. But, by passing the impugned order/directions the High Court has virtually converted itself into executing court. 11. 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 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. 12. We disapprove the entertaining of such writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, without relegating the judgment creditor in whose favour the award is passed to file an execution proceeding before the competent executing court. 4. Considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am not inclined to entertain this writ application, accordingly, the same is dismissed. 5. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 17th July, 2026 Madhav/- Uploaded on:20 /07/2026 -2-