Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Project Director vs Vijayanagara Hatcheries Pvt Ltd on 26 December, 2023
Author: R.Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1170 of 2023
The Project Director,
National Highways Authority of India,
Project Implementation Unit, Plot Nos.149 and 150,
KVR Estate, Koradapet Chellur Junction,
Vizianagaram -- 535 004.
.. Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Vijayanagaram Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory K.Srinivas Reddy,
Aged about 48 years, R/o.54-1-9, 4% Floor,
Dr.N.G.R's Lotus Plaza, Isukathota,
Visakhapatnam - 530 0&8 and 5 others
... Respondents
Counsel forthe Appellant : Mr. Padma Rao G. 8S. Lakkaraju
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. G. Ramesh Babu - Rl
Mr. Jupudi V. K. Yagnadutt,
Deputy Solicitor General of India
-R2
Mr. 8S. 8S. Varma,
Standing Counsel - Rd & R4
G.P. for Land Acquisition - R5 & R6
2 HCJ & RRR, J
W.A.No.1170 of 2023
Dt.: 26.12.2025
PER DHTRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral):
The present writ appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent against the Judgment and Order dated 13.09.2023
in W.P.No.144382 of 20238.
2. The case setup before the learned single Judge by the writ
petitioner was that even when its land measuring one acre twenty
one cents in Sy.No.336/1B and two acres and twenty four cents in
Sy.No.336/2B belonging to the petitioner had been acquired by the
National Highways Authority of India (Gin short 'NHAI') and
compensation determined as per the Award No.135-1/28028, dated
10.08.2022, payment had not been released in its favour.
3. The case of the petitioner further was that the Award was
challenged before the Arbitrator (the District Collector) in terms of
Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, which came to
be dismissed on 05.04.2022 and since the Award had been upheld
and had attained finality, withholding the payment of compensation
was unjustified and illegal.
4. In the backdrop of the aforementioned claims, the learned
single Judge, by virtue of the judgment and order impugned, on
being satisfied that there was no challenge to the Award, dated
3 HCJ & RRR, J
10.08.2022, which had attained finality "as on date", issued
directions to deposit the compensation amount payable to the
petitioner as per the Award, dated 10.08.2088.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
petitioner had in fact not brought to the notice of the learned single
Judge that the order passed by the Arbitrator (the District
Collector) was already under challenge under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was still pending
adjudication. It was admitted that while a prayer for grant of
interim relief had been made, yet no orders had been passed on the
same by the learned District Judge.
6. Apart from this, reliance has been placed upon judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Highways
Authority of India Vs. Sheetal Jaidev Vade & Others!, to buttress
the point that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had disapproved the
entertainment of writ petitions under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for execution of Awards passed by the Arbitral
Tribunal/Court, instead of relegating the judgment creditor to file
execution proceedings before the competent Executing Court.
*1(2022) SCC Online SC 1070]
4 HCJ & RRR, J
The aforementioned observations were made by the Apex
Court in an appeal preferred against a judgment and order passed
in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
directing the NHAI to deposit the entire compensation amount as
awarded by the Arbitrator and thereafter permitting the original
land owners/writ petitioners to withdraw the said amount.
The Apex Court in paragraph 12 of the judgment had noted
that the Award had been challenged by the NHAI by initiating
proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, which were reported to be pending and in those
circumstances held that the High Court ought not to have
entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for purposes of execution of the Award and that by issuing
such directions, the High Court had virtually converted itself into
an Executing Court.
7. The facts of the present case are quite similar to the ones
which were before the Apex Court in the case supra. Admittedly,
the appellant herein had initiated the proceedings under Section 34
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the learned
District Judge, which proceedings are still stated to be pending.
This fact, however, could not be brought to the notice of the learned
5 HCJ & RRR, J
single Judge by the NHAI on account of the fact that on the date
when the judgment and order came to be passed, the appellant was
not represented.
8. Be that as it may, considering the ratio of the judgment
discussed hereinabove, the judgment and order passed by the
learned single Judge is unsustainable and is accordingly set aside
leaving the parties to avail the remedies before the appropriate
forum. The writ appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
kbs
6 HCJ & RRR, J
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Dt: 26.12.2025
kbs
