National Highways Authority of India vs Sheetal Jaidev Vade & Ors.

National Highways Authority of India vs Sheetal Jaidev Vade & Ors.

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5256 of 2022

National Highways Authority of India   .. Appellants

Versus

Sheetal Jaidev Vade & Ors.          .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned

judgment and order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the High

Court of Judicature of Bombay at Aurangabad in Writ Petition

No.144   of   2021   by   which   in   a   writ   petition   filed   by   the

2

respondents   herein   –   original   land   owners,   in   exercise   of

powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High

Court has directed the appellant – NHAI to deposit the entire

compensation amount as awarded by the learned Arbitrator

and thereafter permitting the original land owners – original

writ   petitioners   to   withdraw   the   amount   as   mentioned   in

paragraph 4, the NHAI has preferred the present appeal.

2. That the land of the respondents herein – original land

owners – original writ petitioners came to be acquired by the

NHAI under the provisions of the NHAI Act.  That the amount

of   compensation   came   to   be   enhanced   by   the   learned

Arbitrator.   The award passed by the learned Arbitrator has

been challenged by the NHAI by availing the statutory remedy

under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to the extent of the

enhanced amount.   That as there was no stay of the award

passed   by   the   learned   Arbitrator   in   a   proceedings   under

Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the respondent herein –

original land owners instead of filing the execution petition to

execute   the   award   declared   by   the   learned   Arbitrator

3

enhancing the amount of compensation, filed the writ petition

before the High Court and prayed for a Writ of Mandamus

and/or  appropriate   directions/orders  directing   the  NHAI  to

deposit   the   amount   with   the   Competent   Authority,   Land

Acquisition  and  Sub­Divisional  Officer in  pursuance of  the

award dated 12.06.2018.   By the impugned judgment and

order the High Court has disposed of the said writ petition by

directing the appellant – NHAI to deposit the entire amount

along with interest with the Land Acquisition Authority and

thereafter   has   directed   the   original   writ   petitioners   –   land

owners to withdraw 50% of the amount along with interest on

filing   an   affidavit   of   undertaking   that   if   in   the   litigation

journey, an adverse order is passed against them and they are

found to have withdrawn excess amount, the said amount

would   be   re­deposited   with   the   authority.     So   far   as   the

remaining 50% of the amount with interest is concerned, the

High   Court   has   permitted   the   original   writ   petitioners   –

original   land   owners   to   withdraw   25%   of   the   amount   by

tendering   a   solvent   surety   and   the   remaining   25%   of   the

4

amount to be deposited with the competent authority with a

liberty to invest the said amount in a fixed deposit account in

any Nationalized Bank.  Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with

the impugned order passed by the High Court, the NHAI has

preferred the present appeal.

3. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG appearing on behalf of

the   appellant   –   NHAI   has   vehemently   submitted   that   the

Hon’ble   High   Court   has   seriously   erred   in   passing   the

impugned order in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

3.1 It is further submitted by Ms. Bhati, learned ASG that as

the award passed by the learned Arbitrator was executable

before the concerned Executing Court and therefore when the

original writ petitioners had a statutory remedy available to

execute   the   award   by   initiating   the   execution   proceedings

before the concerned Executing Court, the High Court ought

not to have entertained the writ petitions under Article 226 of

5

the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the

learned Arbitrator. 

3.2 It is further submitted by Ms. Bhati, learned ASG that

even   otherwise   the   Hon’ble   High   Court   has   committed   a

serious error in permitting the writ petitioners – original land

owners to withdraw 75% of the amount of compensation with

interest, when the appellant had already availed the statutory

remedy available to the NHAI to challenge the award passed by

the learned Arbitrator, by way of appeal/application under

Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

3.3 Ms. Bhati, learned ASG has placed reliance on the order

passed by this Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.12409 of

2022  passed in the case of  The  Project  Director,  National

Highways Authority of India vs. Saraswatibai Chandrakant

Shinde   &   Ors.  by   which,   on   the   similar   set   of   facts   and

circumstances this Court has directed the NHAI to deposit

50% of the compensation amount, as awarded by the Arbitral

Tribunal   with   the   Executing   Court   and   has   permitted   the

6

original land owners to withdraw the same unconditionally,

and the balance amount of compensation as per the award to

be   passed   under   Section   34   of   the   Arbitration   Act   to   be

deposited by the NHAI with the Executing Court within four

weeks after such determination.

4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Mr. Shirish K.

Deshpande,   learned   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the

private respondents herein – original writ petitioners – original

land owners.

4.1 It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the

case more particularly considering the fact that there is no

stay   of   the   award   passed   by   the   learned   Arbitral

Tribunal/Court   in   a   proceeding   under   Section   34   of   the

Arbitration Act and that NHAI took possession of the land

without paying any compensation, the Hon’ble High Court has

not   committed   any   error   in   passing   the   impugned   order.

However, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private

respondents   herein   –   original   land   owners   –   original   writ

7

petitioners, is not in a position to dispute and is not disputing

that the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court

is executable by way of an execution proceeding before the

concerned Executing Court.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties at length.

6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the private

respondents herein – original writ petitioners filed the writ

petition before the High Court and prayed for the following

reliefs   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Article   226   of   the

Constitution of India:

“(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/NH­351/CR01   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

8

payment to petitioners forthwith after the

respondents   No.1   and   2   deposit   the

amount.”

6.1 Therefore, reliefs which have been sought by the private

respondents   herein   ­   original   writ   petitioners   were   in   the

nature   of   execution   of   the   award   passed   by   the   learned

Arbitral Tribunal/Court. 

6.2 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,

9

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.

7. 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.

10

7.1 In view of the above discussion, we would have set aside

the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court

on   the   aforesaid   ground   alone.     However,   taking   into

consideration the similar order passed by this Court in the

case of Saraswatibai Chandrakant Shinde (supra), we deem

it appropriate to dispose of the present proceedings/appeal

with the following directions:

(i) The   NHAI   shall   deposit   50   per   cent   of   the

compensation   amount,   as   awarded   by   the   Arbitral

Court, with the Executing Court within a period of four

weeks. The said amount shall be released to the land

owners unconditionally. 

(ii) The   learned   District   Court,   before   whom   the

proceedings under Section­34 of the Arbitration Act

are pending, shall make an endeavour to decide such

proceedings within a period of six months from the

next date of hearing before the said court.

(iii) The balance amount of compensation as per the Award

to be passed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act,

11

shall be deposited by the NHAI with the Executing

Court within four weeks after such determination. The

said amount shall also be released by the Executing

Court   in   favour   of   the   land   owners   subject   to   the

rights and remedies available to the parties in law.

With  these  observations  and  directions,  the  Appeal  is

disposed of. 

The impugned order passed by the High Court of Bombay

dated 01.04.2022 stands modified in above terms. 

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

…………………………………J.

            (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J.

    (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

New Delhi, 

August 24, 2022.