Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Shekh Shahnaj Begam vs Union Of India on 6 March, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:11057
NAFR
RAHUL
JHA
Digitally signed
by RAHUL JHA
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Date: 2025.03.07
18:45:16 +0530
WPC No. 1456 of 2022
1 - Smt. Shekh Shahnaj Begam W/o Shekh Fakira Mohammad Aged About 51
Years R/o A-1, White House, Vaishali Nagar Phase- 1, Shrikant Varma Marg,
Link Road Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - Union Of India Through The Central Secretary/ Chairperson, Ministry Of
Road Transport And Highways, Government Of India, G 5 And 6, Dabri-
Gurgaon Road, Sector 10 Dwarika, New Delhi., District : New Delhi, Delhi
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And
Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
3 - The National Highway Authority Of India (Nhai) Through The Chief
Engineer, National Highway Campus, Janta Colony, Raipur Chhattisgarh,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4 - The Project Director National Highways Authority Of India, D-61, Hig-1
(Akash), Abhilasha Parisar, Behind Hi-Tech Bus Stand Tifra Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
5 - The Collector (Land Acquisition) Bilaspur, Collectorate Building Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
6 - The Sub Divisional Officer Cum Land Acquisition Officer, Bilaspur District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate
For Resp No.1 : Mr. Bhupendra Pandey, Central Govt. Counsel
For State : Ms. Anuja Sharma, PL
For Resp. No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, Advocate
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
06/03/2025
1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a direction towards
the respondents' authority to comply with the order dated 03/09/2019
(Annexure-P/1) read with order dated 23/11/2019 (Annexure-P/2) passed
by the Arbitrator, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that the order dated
03/09/2019 read with the order dated 23/11/2019 passed by the
Additional Commissioner/Arbitrator is under challenge in an application
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1996') bearing MJC No. 74/2021
before the District Judge, Bilaspur. Relying on the judgment of this
Court in the matter of National highways Authority of India through-
Project Director, Project Implementation Unit and Another v. State of
Chhattisgarh and Other1, he would submit that since the order
impugned is under challenge in the application under Section 34 of the
Act, 1996, the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, is not maintainable.
1 2022 SCC OnLine Chh 1629
3. In view of the above submission, learned counsel for the petitioner,
would submit that this petition may be disposed of with a direction to the
learned District Judge, Bilaspur to consider the application filed under
Section 34 of the Act, 1996 within a stipulated period.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the reply of respondent
No.4.
5. From the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.4 as well as
reply filed by it, it appears that the compliance of the order which has
been sought for by petitioner, is under challenge in the proceeding under
Section 34 of the Act, 1996 before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur.
6. In the matter of National highways Authority of India (Supra), this
Court has held at paragraph 10 & 11 as under:-
"10. In the case of National Highways Authority of India v.
Sheetal Jaidev Vade, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1070, the
facts were to the effect that in an application under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the High Court had directed the NHAI to
deposit the entire compensation amount as awarded by the
Arbitrator and permitted the original land owners/original writ
petitioners to withdraw the amount. In the writ petition, following
reliefs were sought for:
"(a) This Writ Petition may kindly be allowed.
(b) That, by way of writ of mandamus of the direction like in
nature the respondents No. 1 and 2 may kindly be directed
to deposit the amount with respondent No. 3 in pursuance of
the award dated 12.06.2018 vide NO. 2016/LA/NH-351/CR-
01 passed by the respondent No. 3 forthwith.
(c) That, by way of writ of mandamus of the directions like
in nature the respondent No. 3 may kindly be directed to
make the payment to petitioners forthwith after the
respondents No. 1 and 2 deposit the amount."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph-11 has observed that
the reliefs which have been sought for by the writ petitioners were
in the nature of execution of the award passed by the learned
Arbitral Tribunal/Court. In paragraphs-12 & 13, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as follows:
"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."
7. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner had sought for execution of the
award, whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sheetal
Jaidev (Supra) deprecated entertainment of such writ petitions instead of
relegating the petitioners to avail alternative efficacious remedy
available as, if the High Courts entertain such petitions, the High Courts
would convert themselves to executing Court.
8. In view of the above settled legal preposition, the writ petition is
disposed of. However, as the application under Section 34 of the Act,
1996 which was filed on 14/12/2020, is pending before the learned
District Judge, Bilaspur, hence, this Court hopes and expects that the
said application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 shall be considered
and decided by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur within a stipulated
period of 6 months.
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Rahul
