Landowner Must Use Section 36, Not Writ, To Enforce District Court’s Commercial-Rate Highway Compensation Order: Patna HC

The petitioner sought enhanced compensation for land and a building acquired for a national highway project, claiming that they should have been valued at commercial rates.

After an earlier writ petition, he pursued arbitration under the applicable NHAI framework; the Commissioner-cum-Arbitrator rejected his claim on 25 January 2023.

On the petitioner’s application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Principal District Judge set aside the arbitral award on 25 May 2026 and directed payment of the balance compensation at the commercial rate prevailing on the date of the Section 11 notification.

The petitioner then filed this writ petition seeking enforcement of that direction.

Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for enforcement of an arbitral award, once the time to apply to set it aside under Section 34 has expired, in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the same manner as a court decree, subject to the provisions of Section 36(2).

The Court held that the petitioner was required to pursue enforcement through the competent court under Section 36.

The petitioner’s grievance was that the respondents had not acted on the Principal District Judge’s order directing payment of the balance compensation.

The Court considered that the petitioner had a statutory route to seek enforcement and concluded that he should use that remedy before the competent court rather than seek execution through a writ petition.

It therefore found no merit in the writ petition.