Smt. Shyam Raji And Another vs District Magistrate,Ayodhya And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3444 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 8
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2855 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Shyam Raji And Another
 
Respondent :- District Magistrate,Ayodhya And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Ehtesham Khan,Shashi Kant Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel representing the National Highway Authority of India.

By means of this petition a prayer has been made to issue a direction to the opposite parties to pay compensation to the petitioner s regarding half share in the land comprised in Gata No.843 situate in village Paliya Shahbadi, Tehsil Sadar, District-Ayodhya in compliance of the award dated 19.10.2020 said to have been passed by the Arbitrator/Collector, District Ayodhya.

Learned counsel representing the National Highway Authority of India, Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, has submitted that against the aforesaid award of the Arbitrator, an application for setting aside award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed, which is pending and in the proceedings of the said application, the petitioners are also participating. His submission is that in view of the provision contained in Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, for enforcement of the award of the Arbitrator, the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable.

Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel representing the opposite parties, we are of the opinion that this petition is not maintainable for the reason that the remedy for enforcement of the award passed by the Arbitrator is available to the petitioners under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This view taken by us is supported by a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 11.01.2021, passed in Writ Petition No.533(L/A) of 2021.

Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition, which is hereby dismissed.

However, it is provided that in case the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are pending before the court concerned, the same shall be considered and decided by the court below in accordance with the law at the earliest, say within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

It is further directed that the parties in the proceedings before the court below where the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is pending, shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments.

Order Date :- 19.5.2022

Rajneesh JR-PS)

(Vivek Chaudhary, J.)