The main legal point established in the judgment is that the competent authority's powers are limited by the statutory provisions under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Rules of 1998, and it does not possess the power to execute its own award.

Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. The National Highways Authority of India ("NHAI" for short) has filed this petition challenging an order dated 23.1.2014 as at Annexure-P/1 to the petition passed by respondent No. 1 Competent Authority and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mount Abu.

2. Brief facts are as under. NHAI required certain private lands for widening the national highway near Sirohi. For such purpose, the land admeasuring 5283.20 sq. mtrs. of Khasra No. 1240 of village Santrampur belonging to respondent No. 2 came to be acquired by following the procedure provided under the National Highways Act, 1956 ("the said Act" for short). The competent authority appointed under the said Act passed an award on 24.7.2007 determining compensation of Rs. 20,26,671.39 payable to respondent No. 2 for such lands. It is undisputed that respondent No. 2 also received such compensation when the possession of the lands was taken over by the NHAI. Respondent No. 2 objecting to adequacy of compensation, preferred an application under section 3G(5) of the Act for enhancement before the arbitrator. After one round of remand, the competent authority passed its award on 13.5.2013, awarding revised compensation of Rs. 88,84,587.58 to respondent No. 2. In terms of the provisions of the said Act, it was open for NHAI to question such compensation. A reference was therefore, sought before the arbitrator. The arbitrator and the District Collector, Sirohi, by order dated 8.11.2003 rejected such application and thereby confirmed the compensation awarded by the competent authority.

3. Aggrieved by such arbitral award, the petitioner NHAI also filed application for setting aside the same under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on 6.1.2014.

4. In the meantime, presumably at the instance of respondent No. 2, in order to seek recovery of the amount of compensation awarded by the competent authority, a communication dated 18.12.2013 was sent by the competent authority to NHAI asking the authorities to issue two cheques of Rs. 88,84,588/- and Rs. 11,66,807/- in favour of respondent No. 2 and the income-tax department towards the tax deduction at source respectively. The Project Director of NHAI however, refused to sign such cheques conveying under letter dated 28.12.2013 to the competent authority that NHAI has decided to challenge the award passed by the arbitrator.

5. Despite such facts, the competent authority passed the impugned order on 23.1.2014 in which it was recorded that respondent No. 2 herein had filed application for recovery since the amount of Rs. 88,84,588/- and Rs. 11,66,807/- was not paid despite directions contained in the order dated 18.12.2013 for complying with the directions of the arbitrator. Notice on such proceedings was issued and served to NHAI on 15.1.2014 under Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC, despite which, neither any reply was filed by NHAI nor anyone remained present before the competent authority. It was further recorded that the applicant claimant had approached for execution of the award of the arbitrator and for recovery of sum of Rs. 88,84,588/- by way of compensation and Rs. 11,66,807/- towards tax deduction at source. The competent authority therefore, ordered seizure of two bank accounts of NHAI namely, account No. 71201010007938 of Syndicate bank, Gandhidham branch and account No. 10500200000199 of Bank of Baroda, Mount Abu branch for sum of Rs. 88,84,588/- and Rs. 11,66,807/-. It was clarified that in addition to such sum if there is remaining amount in the account, it would be open for the NHAI to operate the account. If the balance in such account is lesser than such sum, all future deposits would be adjusted towards such seizure order. It is this order which NHAI has challenged in this petition.

6. Learned counsel Shri Maulik Nanavati for the petitioner contended that the competent authority had no power or jurisdiction to pass any such order. Our attention was drawn to the provisions contained in