APHC010399022026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2121 OF 2026 Between: 1. National Highway Authority of India, Rep by Project Director,Project Implementation Unit, Chittoor, D.No.2 517001. 1. V CALAdhar, S/o. Rangaiah Naidu,Mogili Village, Bangarupalem Mandal,Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh 2. V Laalasa, W/o.V.CALA District, Andhra Pradesh-517429. 3. The District Collector, Cum Arbitrator For NH Cases office of District Collector,Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toto allow the CivilRevision Petition by setting aside the Order dated IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2121 OF 2026 1. National Highway Authority of India, Rep by Project Director,Project Implementation Unit, Chittoor, D.No.2-1273/1 F,B.V. Reddy Colony, Chittoor ...Petitioner AND dhar, S/o. Rangaiah Naidu,Mogili Village, Bangarupalem ttoor District, Andhra Pradesh-517429. CALAdharMogili Village, Bangarupalem Mandal,Chittoor 517429. 3. The District Collector, Cum Arbitrator For NH Cases office of District Collector,Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh-517002. ...Respondents Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toto allow the CivilRevision Petition by setting aside the Order dated IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR 1. National Highway Authority of India, Rep by Project Director,Project 1273/1 F,B.V. Reddy Colony, Chittoor- ...Petitioner dhar, S/o. Rangaiah Naidu,Mogili Village, Bangarupalem dharMogili Village, Bangarupalem Mandal,Chittoor 3. The District Collector, Cum Arbitrator For NH Cases office of District ...Respondents Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toto allow the CivilRevision Petition by setting aside the Order dated 18.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.318 of 2025 in Arbitration O.P.No.260 of 2024 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the order dated 18.06.2026 passed in I.A. No. 318 of 2025 in Ar.O.P. No. 260 of 2024 to the extent of unconditional withdrawal of the 50% amount on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor pending disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: THANDAVA YOGESH Counsel for the Respondents: SRINIVASA RAO NARRA The Court made the following order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2121 OF 2026 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Ramesh) The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the National Highways Authority of India, aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2026 passed in I.A. No.318 of 2025 in AR.O.P.No.260 of 2024 by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor. 2. Initially, the petitioners filed AR.O.P. No.260 of 2024 challenging D.Dis.No.69/107 Arbitration Appeal /2023/ LA/NHAI /39/2018 /Addl. Supplementary Award No.2, Mogili Village, Bangarupalem Mandal, dated 27.05.2024. Under the said proceedings, the compensation awarded by the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) by award dated 12.12.2022 for a sum of Rs.5,63,72,128/- was modified to Rs.4,09,31,478/-. Pending disposal of the said AR.O.P., petitioners filed I.A. No.318 of 2025 seeking stay of the award. The learned trial Court, while allowing the application in part, passed the following order: “In the result, this petition is partly allowed. There shall be stay of further proceedings in O.E.P.No.136 of 2024 on the file of the VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor, including further coercive steps for attachment of movables against the petitioner, pending disposal of Ar.O.P.No.260 of 2024, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 50% of the arbitral award amount, i.e., Rs.2,04,65,739/- (Rupees two crores four lakhs sixty five thousand seven hundred and thirty nine only), before the executing Court in O.E.P.No.136 of 2024 within 45 days from the date of this Order. On such deposit, respondents 1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw the said amount without furnishing security. Such withdrawal shall be subject to the result of Ar.O.P.No.260 of 2024 and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties in the main Arbitration O.P. If the petitioner fails to deposit the said amount within the stipulated time, the stay granted under this order shall stand vacated automatically and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are at liberty to proceed with the execution in accordance with law. No order as to costs”. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the award passed by the CALA dated 12.12.2022 is without jurisdiction. It is submitted that once an award is passed under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, the CALA has no jurisdiction to entertain any further claim relating to determination of compensation. The only jurisdiction available thereafter is under Section 3H of the Act to decide disputes regarding distribution of compensation amongst the claimants. It is further contended that, after the award under Section 3G, the only remedy available to both the parties is to invoke arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. 4. According to the petitioners, contrary to the above, the CALA entertained a representation submitted by the claimants on 06.09.2022 and passed a subsequent award dated 12.12.2022 after having already passed the final award. It is submitted that such exercise of jurisdiction is contrary to the provisions of the National Highways Act and therefore illegal. Though the learned Arbitrator partly modified the compensation from Rs.5,63,72,128/- to Rs.4,09,31,478/-, he failed to examine the fundamental issue relating to the jurisdiction of the CALA to pass the subsequent award. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is, therefore, contended that direction issued to deposit 50% of the award amount along with permitting its withdrawal would seriously affect the petitioners. Accordingly, it is prayed that the operation of the order dated 18.06.2026 passed in I.A. No.318 of 2025 be stayed. 5. In reply to the said contention, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the proceedings before the trial Court arise out of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and therefore, upon deposit of the amount, the respondents are entitled to withdraw the same in terms of the order passed by the CALA dated 12.12.2022. 6. It is the case of the respondents that while determining compensation under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956, the CALA failed to consider the value of the existing structures despite the claim made by them. Consequently, they submitted a representation on 06.09.2022. Upon verification of the material available on record, the CALA passed the award dated 12.12.2022. Thereafter, the arbitration proceedings initiated under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act were also concluded, wherein the learned Arbitrator, after considering the entire record, modified the compensation. It is, therefore, contended that the respondents are entitled to withdraw the amount deposited pursuant to the impugned order. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the issue raised by the petitioners pertains to the jurisdiction of the CALA to pass the subsequent award dated 12.12.2022. Since the legality of the said award is the very subject matter of challenge in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, permitting withdrawal of the deposited amount at this stage may result in unavoidable complications, particularly if the petitioners ultimately succeed. Therefore, this Court is inclined to modify the order under challenge. 8. Accordingly, the petitioners shall comply with the condition imposed by the learned VIII Additional District Judge by depositing 50% of the arbitral award amount within a period of four (04) weeks from today. However, upon such deposit, the respondents shall not be permitted to withdraw the said amount until disposal of A.R.O.P. No.260 of 2024. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also invited the attention of this Court to the statutory mandate under Section 34(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the legislative intent for expeditious disposal of applications under Section 34, since the pleadings in the Arbitration O.P. were already completed, this Court deems it appropriate to request the learned trial Court to dispose of A.R.O.P. No.260 of 2024 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. ____________ D.RAMESH, J ____________________ ALAPATI GIRIDHAR, J Dated : 05.8.2026 TJN 72 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2121 OF 2026 Dated: 05.8.2026 TJN HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2121 OF 2026 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 05.8.2026 DR, J & AGD, J The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. (Vide Separate Order) _______ DR, J _______ AGD, J TJN