Chattisgarh High Court
Madhuri Patle vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 January, 2023
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition (C) No.340 of 2023
1. Madhuri Patle W/o Tekram Patle Aged About 42 Years Occupation
Agriculturist Of Village Mulle, P.H. No.4, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh, R/o G-08, VIP Colony, Saddu, Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Bhartiya Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran Pariyojna Kriyanyawan Ekai
Dhamtari, Through Pariyojna Nideshak, Block F-5, Shivraj Greens, Sihawa
Road, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer-Cum-Land Acquisition Officer Kurud, District :
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
____
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For State : Shri Pawan Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
27.01.2023.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the
respondents to consider release of the compensation which has been
awarded in favour of the petitioner for the land belonging to the petitioner
which stood acquired for the purpose of construction of the Raipur-
Dhamtari National Highway No.30.
2. Perusal of the pleadings of the writ petition itself it is evident that the
National Highway Authority have already questioned the award passed by
the Land Acquisition Officer by way of a Reference under Section 34 of the
National Highways Act before the District Judge, Dhamtari and the matter
stands seized before the concerned District Judge.
3. Highlighting this fact, the counsel for the State submits that in the light of
the judgment of the Supreme Court recently passed in the case of National
Highways Authority of India Vs. Sheetal Jaidev Vade and Others, 2022
SCC Online SC 1070, the present writ petition therefore would not be
maintainable.
4. A similar matter came up for hearing before this court recently in WPC
No.3025 of 2020 and this court had dismissed the said writ petition on
03.01.2023. In the said writ petition in paragraphs 9 and 10 it has been
held as under:
"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."
5. In view of the aforesaid view taken by this court relying upon the judgment
of the Supreme Court in case of Sheetal Jaidev (Supra), this court is of the
opinion that the present writ petition also would therefore be not
maintainable till the dispute before the District Judge under Section 34 is
pending. It would be more appropriate for the petitioner to avail the remedy
of execution available to him under the Act itself and not by availing the
recourse under the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India as has been permitted by the Supreme Court also in
the aforesaid judgment in Sheetal Jaidev (Supra).
6. The writ petition accordingly stands rejected with the aforesaid liberty.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
inder
