Patna High Court - Orders
The Project Director National Highway ... vs Md.Gufran Alam & Ors on 16 August, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1289 of 2011
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7179 of 2011
With
Interlocutory Application No.6333 of 2011
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.1289 of 2011
======================================================
1. The Project Director, National Highway Authority, Araria at Purnea,
Bihar.
2. The Managing Direction, National Highway Authority of India, New
Delhi.
.... .... Respondents-Appellants
Versus
1. Md. Gufran Alam S/o Late Salim Uddin, Resident of Village-Belwa Tapu
Tola, P.S.-Town, District-Araria.
.... .... Petitioner-Respondent
2. The State of Bihar.
3. The District Magistrate, Araria.
4. The Competent Authority-cum-District Land Acquisition Officer, Araria
Collectorate, Araria.
.... .... Respondents-Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Sunil Kumar-II, Advocate
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
2 Patna High Court LPA No.1289 of 2011 (5) dt.16-08-2013
2/5
5. 16-8-2013Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20th May 2011 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 7179 of 2011, the respondent National Highway Authority has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.
It appears that the dispute arises from the action of the respondent Project Director, National Highway Authority, Araria (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") in acquiring the lands of the respondent-writ petitioner situated at Village-Belwa Tapu Tola, P.S., Town and District-Araria for construction of National Highway. The Competent Authority, under the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956"), declared the award for compensation for the lands acquired. Feeling aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount of compensation, the writ petitioner demanded arbitration. Pursuant to the reference to the Arbitrator, the arbitral award has been declared on 18th January 2011. As the Authority failed to make the payment of amount of compensation, the writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above C.W.J.C. No. 7179 of 2011 for enforcement of the arbitral award.
Petition was contested by the Authority. According to the Authority, the amount of compensation determined by the Competent Authority in the sum of Rs.48,60,230.00 has been paid to the writ petitioner on 8th March 2010, pursuant to the direction dated 25th February 2010 issued by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3219 of 2010.
We are informed at the bar that the Authority has challenged the arbitral award before the civil Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 3 Patna High Court LPA No.1289 of 2011 (5) dt.16-08-2013 3/5 referred to as "the Act of 1996"). The said challenge is pending before the civil Court.
The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and has directed the Authority to act strictly in terms of the provisions contained in Section 3-H of the Act of 1956 and that the payment be made to the writ petitioner. The appropriate surety shall be obtained from the writ petitioner. Therefore, this Appeal.
Learned advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar-II has appeared for the Authority. He has submitted that the Act of 1956 read with the Act of 1996 provide a complete remedy to the land owner. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not lie for enforcement of the award for compensation made under the Act of 1956.
Learned advocate Mr. Amar Nath Singh has appeared for the writ petitioner. He has vehemently submitted that it is the statutory duty of the Authority to make payment of the amount of compensation awarded by the Arbitrator. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would, therefore, lie for enforcement of the statutory right of the writ petitioner to receive compensation.
We may look to the certain provisions of the Act of 1956 and the Act of 1996 which are relevant for resolution of dispute before us. Section 3-G of the Act of 1956 provides for determination of amount of compensation by the Competent Authority. Sub-section (5) thereof empowers either of the parties aggrieved by the award of the Competent Authority to seek arbitration against such award. Sub-section (6) of Section 3-G of the said Act provides that the proceeding before the Arbitrator 4 Patna High Court LPA No.1289 of 2011 (5) dt.16-08-2013 4/5 shall be regulated by the provisions contained in the Act of 1956. Section 3-H of the Act of 1956 provides for deposit and payment of amount. Sub-section (1) thereof provides for deposit of the amount of compensation with the Competent Authority. Sub- section (2) thereof provides for payment of the amount to the claimants. Sub-section (6) thereof provides for deposit of the amount of difference in compensation awarded by the Arbitrator. It is this sub-section (6) which is pressed into service by the writ petitioner.
As recorded hereinabove, the proceedings before the Arbitrator are governed by the Act of 1996. Section 34 of the Act of 1996 provides for a remedy against the arbitral award by an application for setting aside the arbitral award before the Court. The "Court" is defined under Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act of 1996 to mean, "the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes." Hence, it is evident that the remedy against the arbitral award lies before the civil Court. Section 36 of the Act of 1996 provides for enforcement of the arbitral award under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. Thus, the statutory remedy for enforcement of the arbitral award made under Section 3-G (5) of the Act of 1956 lies before the civil Court.
In view of the statutory remedy for execution of the 5 Patna High Court LPA No.1289 of 2011 (5) dt.16-08-2013 5/5 arbitral award being available, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not lie. The learned single Judge has erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the subject matter.
For the aforesaid reason, the Appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 20th May 2011 made on C.W.J.C. No. 7179 of 2011 is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 7179 of 2011 is dismissed.
Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. We clarify that this order shall not preclude the respondent-writ petitioner from availing of the statutory remedy for execution of the arbitral award under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ) A.F.R. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pawan/-