/2022 INSC 0745/
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5256 of 2022
National Highways Authority of India   .. Appellants
Versus
Sheetal Jaidev Vade & Ors.          .. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   01.04.2022   passed   by   the   High
Court of Judicature of Bombay at Aurangabad in Writ Petition
No.144   of   2021   by   which   in   a   writ   petition   filed   by   the

2
respondents   herein   –   original   land   owners,   in   exercise   of
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High
Court   has   directed   the   appellant   –  NHAI   to   deposit   the   entire
compensation   amount   as   awarded   by   the   learned   Arbitrator
and   thereafter   permitting   the   original   land   owners   –   original
writ   petitioners   to   withdraw   the   amount   as   mentioned   in
paragraph 4, the NHAI has preferred the present appeal.
2. That   the   land   of   the   respondents   herein   –   original   land
owners   –   original   writ   petitioners   came   to   be   acquired   by   the
NHAI under the provisions of the NHAI Act.   That the amount
of   compensation   came   to   be   enhanced   by   the   learned
Arbitrator.     The   award   passed   by   the   learned   Arbitrator   has
been challenged by the NHAI by availing the statutory remedy
under   Section   34   of   the   Arbitration   Act   to   the   extent   of   the
enhanced   amount.     That   as   there   was   no   stay   of   the   award
passed   by   the   learned   Arbitrator   in   a   proceedings   under
Section   34   of   the   Arbitration   Act,   the   respondent   herein   –
original land owners instead of filing the execution petition to
execute   the   award   declared   by   the   learned   Arbitrator

3
enhancing the amount of compensation, filed the writ petition
before   the   High   Court   and   prayed   for   a   Writ   of   Mandamus
and/or   appropriate   directions/orders   directing   the   NHAI   to
deposit   the   amount   with   the   Competent   Authority,   Land
Acquisition   and   Sub­Divisional   Officer   in   pursuance   of   the
award   dated   12.06.2018.     By   the   impugned   judgment   and
order the High Court has disposed of the said writ petition by
directing   the   appellant   –   NHAI   to   deposit   the   entire   amount
along   with   interest   with   the   Land   Acquisition   Authority   and
thereafter   has   directed   the   original   writ   petitioners   –   land
owners to withdraw 50% of the amount along with interest on
filing   an   affidavit   of   undertaking   that   if   in   the   litigation
journey, an adverse order is passed against them and they are
found   to   have   withdrawn   excess   amount,   the   said   amount
would   be   re­deposited   with   the   authority.     So   far   as   the
remaining   50%   of   the   amount   with   interest   is   concerned,   the
High   Court   has   permitted   the   original   writ   petitioners   –
original   land   owners   to   withdraw   25%   of   the   amount   by
tendering   a   solvent   surety   and   the   remaining   25%   of   the

4
amount   to   be   deposited   with   the   competent   authority   with   a
liberty to invest the said amount in a fixed deposit account in
any Nationalized Bank.  Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the   impugned   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   the   NHAI   has
preferred the present appeal.
3. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG appearing on behalf of
the   appellant   –   NHAI   has   vehemently   submitted   that   the
Hon’ble   High   Court   has   seriously   erred   in   passing   the
impugned order in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
3.1 It is further submitted by Ms. Bhati, learned ASG that as
the   award   passed   by   the   learned   Arbitrator   was   executable
before the concerned Executing Court and therefore when the
original   writ   petitioners   had   a   statutory   remedy   available   to
execute   the   award   by   initiating   the   execution   proceedings
before   the   concerned   Executing   Court,   the   High   Court   ought
not to have entertained the writ petitions under Article 226 of

5
the   Constitution   of   India   to   execute   the   award   passed   by   the
learned Arbitrator. 
3.2 It   is   further   submitted   by   Ms.   Bhati,   learned   ASG   that
even   otherwise   the   Hon’ble   High   Court   has   committed   a
serious  error   in  permitting   the   writ   petitioners  –   original   land
owners to withdraw 75% of the amount of compensation with
interest, when the appellant had already availed the statutory
remedy available to the NHAI to challenge the award passed by
the   learned   Arbitrator,   by   way   of   appeal/application   under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
3.3 Ms. Bhati, learned ASG has placed reliance on the order
passed by this Court in  Special Leave to Appeal No.12409 of
2022   passed   in   the   case   of   The   Project   Director,   National
Highways Authority of India vs. Saraswatibai Chandrakant
Shinde   &   Ors.   by   which,   on   the   similar   set   of   facts   and
circumstances   this   Court   has   directed   the   NHAI   to   deposit
50% of the compensation amount, as awarded by the Arbitral
Tribunal   with   the   Executing   Court   and   has   permitted   the

6
original   land   owners   to   withdraw   the   same   unconditionally,
and the balance amount of compensation as per the award to
be   passed   under   Section   34   of   the   Arbitration   Act   to   be
deposited   by   the   NHAI   with   the   Executing   Court   within   four
weeks after such determination.
4. Present   appeal   is   vehemently   opposed   by   Mr.   Shirish   K.
Deshpande,   learned   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
private respondents herein – original writ petitioners – original
land owners.
4.1 It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the
case   more   particularly   considering   the   fact   that   there   is   no
stay   of   the   award   passed   by   the   learned   Arbitral
Tribunal/Court   in   a   proceeding   under   Section   34   of   the
Arbitration   Act   and   that   NHAI   took   possession   of   the   land
without paying any compensation, the Hon’ble High Court has
not   committed   any   error   in   passing   the   impugned   order.
However,   learned   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   private
respondents   herein   –   original   land   owners   –   original   writ

7
petitioners, is not in a position to dispute and is not disputing
that the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court
is   executable   by   way   of   an   execution   proceeding   before   the
concerned Executing Court.
5. We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respective
parties at length.
6. At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   the   private
respondents   herein   –   original   writ   petitioners   filed   the   writ
petition   before   the   High   Court   and   prayed   for   the   following
reliefs   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Article   226   of   the
Constitution of India:
“ (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/NH­351/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

8
payment   to   petitioners   forthwith   after   the
respondents   No.1   and   2   deposit   the
amount.”
6.1 Therefore,   reliefs   which   have   been   sought   by   the   private
respondents   herein   ­   original   writ   petitioners   were   in   the
nature   of   execution   of   the   award   passed   by   the   learned
Arbitral Tribunal/Court. 
6.2 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,

9
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. 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
7.1 In view of the above discussion, we would have set aside
the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
on   the   aforesaid   ground   alone.     However,   taking   into
consideration   the   similar   order   passed   by   this   Court   in   the
case   of   Saraswatibai   Chandrakant   Shinde   (supra),   we   deem
it   appropriate   to   dispose   of   the   present   proceedings/appeal
with the following directions:
(i) The   NHAI   shall   deposit   50   per   cent   of   the
compensation   amount,   as   awarded   by   the   Arbitral
Court, with the Executing Court within a period of four
weeks.  The  said   amount   shall   be   released   to   the   land
owners unconditionally. 
(ii) The   learned   District   Court,   before   whom   the
proceedings   under   Section­34   of   the   Arbitration   Act
are  pending,  shall   make  an  endeavour  to   decide  such
proceedings   within   a   period   of   six   months   from   the
next date of hearing before the said court.
(iii) The balance amount of compensation as per the Award
to   be   passed   under   Section   34   of   the   Arbitration   Act,

11
shall   be   deposited   by   the   NHAI   with   the   Executing
Court within four weeks after such determination. The
said   amount   shall   also   be   released   by   the   Executing
Court   in   favour   of   the   land   owners   subject   to   the
rights and remedies available to the parties in law.
 
With   these   observations   and   directions,   the   Appeal   is
disposed of. 
The impugned order passed by the High Court of Bombay
dated 01.04.2022 stands modified in above terms. 
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………………J.
            (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
    (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
August 24, 2022.