Chattisgarh High Court

Mangalram Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 January, 2023

                                     -1-

                                                                         NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3025 OF 2020
      Mangalram Sahu, S/o Late Shri Babulal Sahu, aged about 57
years, R/o Village Bhathagaon, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.)
                                                            ... Petitioner
                                 versus
1.     State of Chhattisgarh, through: Secretary, Public Works
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.)
2.     The Secretary, Department of Revenue and Calamity
Management, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
3.     Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway
Division, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
4.     The Collector, District Dhamtari (C.G.)
5.     The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue)/Competent Authority
(Land Acquisition), Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.)
6.     Union of India, through: Secretary, Ministry of Road, Transport
and Highways, New Delhi.
7.     National Highway Authority, through: Project Director, Project
Implementation Unit, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
                                                       ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate, For Respondents 1 to 5 : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, P.L. For Respondent 6 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Dy.S.G. For Respondent 7 : Mr. D.K. Wankhede, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board [03/01/2023]

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed filed by the Petitioner

seeking for the following Relief:-

"10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondent authorities to disburse the compensation amount to the petitioner as per the supplementary award dated 16.07.2018 (Annexure P-3) from the date of main award dated 12.07.2016 passed by the Respondent No.5 along with interest at the rate of 15% till the date of disbursement. 10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondent authorities to disburse the compensation amount to the petitioner along with the interest within a period of 30 days.

10.4 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted."

2. In short, it appears that the instant Writ Petition has been filed

seeking for the execution of the supplementary Award dated

16.7.2018 passed under the provision of the National Highways Act,

1956 (for short, "the Act") and also for the interest.

3. Upon notice, the National Highways Authority of India (for short,

"the NHAI") entered appearance and has produced a document

whereby it reflects that for the same chunk of land that situates in

Khasra No.1086, admeasuring 0.0363 hectare, in terms of the original

Award dated 13.3.2015 the amount of compensation to the tune of

Rs.80,502/- was already awarded in favour of one Babulal S/o

Heeralal.

4. Babulal is father of the Petitioner (subject to verification of fact).

Whereas the claim of the Petitioner is that the aforesaid land in

Khasra No.1086, admeasuring 0.0363 hectare is the land which

stands in the name of the Petitioner i.e. Mangalram Sahu, S/o Late

Babulal Sahu and that he has not been paid any amount of

compensation whatsoever.

5. The Petitioner contends that it was at his behest that the

supplementary Award dated 16.7.2018 was passed which till date has

not been honoured by the Respondents, nor has he received any

amount subsequently. The said supplementary Award has also till

date not been challenged by any of the Respondents and by efflux of

time the same has also got finalized.

6. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.7-NHAI contends that the

supplementary Award is per se bad in law, for the reason that the

Authority concerned was not having the jurisdiction to pass the

supplementary Award once when the original Award stood passed on

13.3.2015 under Section 3A of the Act. According to him, once an

Award has been passed and it has attained finality, the Competent

Authority (Land Acquisition) becomes functus officio and would not be

in capacity to revisit the earlier Award passed and pass a

supplementary Award.

7. It is also contention of learned Counsel for Respondent No.7-

NHAI that even the passing of the supplementary Award was not

known to the NHAI for a long period of time and it is only at a belated

stage that they have been informed of such a supplementary Award.

That as such the said supplementary Award also is one which has

been passed at the back of the NHAI and for which the NHAI has

already raised various objections before the Respondent No.5, the

Competent Authority itself, and there is yet any decision to be taken

by the Respondent No.5 on the objections so raised by the NHAI.

8. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.7-NHAI has relied upon

the decision rendered by this Court in the case of "Mahesh Nachrani

& Others Vs. Union of India & Others" and other connected Writ

Petitions, reported in 2021 AIR CG 135.

9. Be that as it may, considering the specific stand that the

Respondent - NHAI has raised that in respect of the same land there

was already an Award passed in the name of one Babulal and the

amount of compensation also has been deposited with the Land

Acquisition Officer, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of

the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently passed in the

case of "National Highways Authority of India Vs. Sheetal Jaidev

Vade and Others" [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1070]. In the said

Judgment, where the challenge was to the Order of the High Court in

a Writ Petition ordering for releasing of the amount deposited

pursuant to an Award passed under the National Highways Act, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-12 & 13 has held as under:-

"12. 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, 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.

13. 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. Considering the fact that there is a dispute at the first instance

in respect of the claim of the Petitioner so far as the property that

situates in Khasra No.1086, admeasuring 0.0363 hectare is

concerned, it would not be appropriate for this Court in exercise of its

Writ jurisdiction to entertain the present Writ Petition and decide the

entitlement of the Petitioner or to decide the veracity of the

supplementary Award dated 16.7.2018.

11. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court at this juncture is disposing of the present Writ Petition,

permitting the Petitioner to approach the concerned Competent

Court/Authority for the execution of the supplementary Award dated

16.7.2018 unless the same is challenged or set aside by any of the

Authorities till now.

12. Needless to mention that considering the fact that the

supplementary Award is dated 16.7.2018 and that it has not been

challenged by any of the Respondents till date, upon the Petitioner's

making any application for execution of the same before the

concerned Executing Court/Authority, the concerned Authority shall

expedite the proceeding at the earliest.