Madhya Pradesh High Court
National Highways Authority Of India ... vs Dinesh on 15 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13049
1 WP-28126-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 15th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 28126 of 2023
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA PIU RATLAM
Versus
DINESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Tayjas Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pritam Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India challenging the amended award dated 02.03.2021
passed by respondent No.3, whereby the awards dated 28.02.2019 and
28.02.2020 have been amended.
02. Facts of the case in short are as under:-
2.1. For the construction of eight lane NH-148N (Delhi - Vadodara),
the respondents acquired the land from Village - Dhamnod, Tehsil - Jawad,
District - Neemuch vide Gazette Notification dated 10.09.2018. Thereafter, a
notification under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 was
published on 27.12.2018. Since the land of respondent No.1 was acquired
under the provisions of National Highways Act, therefore, the Competent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13049
2 WP-28126-2023
Authority passed the awards dated 28.02.2019 and 28.02.2020.
2.3. After some time, respondent No.3 has passed an ex parte award
dated 02.03.2021 by amending the awards dated 28.02.2019 and 28.02.2020
with notice to the NHAI. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid award
dated 02.03.2021 in light of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Indrakala Agrawal & Others v/s The State of Madhya
Pradesh & Others (Writ Petition No.8178 of 2020) , in which it has been held
that the competent authority has no jurisdiction to amend the award and the
remedy is under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act before the
arbitrator.
03. Vide order dated 20.11.2023, while issuing notices to the
respondents, this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo .
04. After notice, respondent No.1 has filed a reply by submitting that
the petitioner has suppressed that against the impugned amended award dated
02.03.2021, the petitioner / NHAI had already approached the arbitrator /
Collector, Ratlam by way of application under Section 3G(5) & 3G(6) of the
National Highways Act. In the said application, respondent No.1 has filed an
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC which has been rejected
vide order dated 14.07.2023. Against the said order, respondent No.1
preferred Civil Revision No.533 of 2023 before this Court, in which interim
relief has been granted on 25.07.2023.
05. Simultaneously, respondent No.1 has also challenged the award
sdated 28.02.2019 and 28.02.2020 before the arbitrator, i.e. Collector,
Ratlam by way of application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13049
3 WP-28126-2023
Act. Vide order dated 04.08.2022, learned arbitrator has dismissed the
application. Against the order dated 04.08.2022, respondent No.1 preferred
an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996
before the District Court, Ratlam. Vide order dated 09.08.2024, the learned
Additional District Judge dismissed the application (MJC AV No.1/2022).
Respondent No.1 challenged the order dated 09.08.2024 by way of
Arbitration Appeal No.148 of 2024, in which notice has been issued to the
NHAI on 04.11.2024.
06. When the petitioner had challenged the award dated 02.03.2021
by way of application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act
before the Collector, then this writ petition ought not to have been filed to
obtain the stay. Two parallel proceedings are not permissible. Since this
Court in the case of Indrakala Agrawal (supra) had held that Sub Divisional
Officer / Land Acquisition Officer has no authority to amend the award,
therefore, the award dated 02.03.2021 is not sustainable in the eye of law and
the same is liable to be set aside. Upon setting aside of order dated
02.03.2021, the application filed before the Collector, Ratlam shall stand
terminated and C.R. No.533 of 2023 shall be rendered infructuous.
Respondent No.1 undertakes to withdraw the C.R. No.533 of 2023.
07. The awards dated 28.02.2019 and 28.02.2020 had already been
challenged by respondent No.1 by way of application under Section 3G(5) of
the National Highways Act which was dismissed vide order dated
04.08.2022, against which MJC AV No.1/2022 under Section 34 of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act was filed and dismissed vide order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:13049
4 WP-28126-2023
09.08.2024 and now A.A. No.145 of 2024 is pending before this Court. The
NHAI has no grievance against the awards dated 28.02.2019 and 28.02.2020,
therefore, now the NHAI is only required to contest the A.A. No.145 of
2024.
08. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 02.03.2021
(Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed. The proceedings before the arbitrator and
Collector, Ratlam (National Highways Authority of India v/s Dinesh) Case
No.13/Appeal/2023-24 stands quashed and C.R. No.533 of 2023 (Dinesh v/s
Union of India through National Highways Authority of India) be treated as
rendered infructuous. Since the NHAI has resorted two remedies by
suppressing the proceeding before the arbitrator, hence, a cost of Rs.10,000/-
is imposed which shall be payable to respondent No.1.
09. Writ Petition stands allowed with cost as above.
(VIVEK RUSIA) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
