NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA vs. SHEETAL JAIDEV VADE

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2022.08.24 17:14:54 IST Reason: 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/CR­ 01   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     we deem Saraswatibai Chandrakant Shinde (supra), 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.