(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

16-8-2013 Feeling 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 referred to as “the Act of 1996”). The said challenge is pending before the civil Court.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 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.

9. 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 again