The availability of alternate remedies under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 for execution and the pending challenge to the arbitral award under Section 34 were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orders dated 05.09.2022; 30.09.2022; 08.11.2022; 02.12.202 and 24.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.23622, 26567, 29625, 32666 and 214 of 2022.)

Common Judgment:

Sanjay V. Gangapurwala, C.J.

1. The present private respondents/original writ petitioners have filed writ petitions before the learned Single Judge seeking directions against the third respondent therein/present appellant to deposit the compensation amount as per the award passed by the Collector under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and disburse the same. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions by directing the authorities concerned to pay the enhanced compensation.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contented that none of the conditions raised by the present appellant was considered by the arbitrator while passing the award. The issue of limitation was subsequently raised and the same has not been addressed by the arbitrator. Other factual aspects were also raised, however, without considering the grounds raised by the present appellant the award has been passed, thereby awarding the exorbitant compensation amount.

3. The appellant has filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as, ''the Act of 1996'') challenging the said award, but, due to the fact that the officer in-charge to register got changed twice, the application was not registered.

4. Learned counsel further submits that in fact, the writ petitions ought not to have been entertained. The writ petitions are not maintainable. The original petitioners had the liberty to file execution. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the writ petition is not maintainable, where there is a specific alternate remedy available under Section 36 of the Act of 1996 for execution, however, still directed the appellant to deposit the enhanced compensation amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and further observed that if any interim order against the arbitral award is not obtained within four weeks, the competent authority was directed to disburse the compensation amount. Learned Single Judge has not decided on the merits of the contentions of the present appellant. The condition imposed to deposit the amount and disburse the same is an onerous one.

5. It is the case of the private respondents/original writ petitioners that the writ petitions claiming payment of the enhanced amount as per the award are maintainable. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 24.07.2018 in W.P.No.1230 of 2018. It is stated that in respect of the property acquired for the same project earlier, award is passed in the year 2017 and the rate of compensation award therein is only awarded to the original petitioners in these matters.

6. It is further stated that it is the bounden duty of the authorities to deposit the amount as per the award. The appellant has paid the enhanced amount of compensation, as per the arbitral award, in respect of some claimants, but is selectively depriving of the enhanced amount to the original petitioners.

7. We have considered the submissions advised by learned counsel for the parties.

8. No doubt, the original petitioners have a remedy of execution under Section 36 of the Act of 1996.

9. Be that as it may, according to the present appellant, the challenge to the arbitral award is pending consideration before the concerned District Judge. In view of that, it would not be proper for us to comment upon the merits of the arbitral award. In light thereof, we have not considered the contentions of the respective parties upon the merits of the arbitral award.

10. The deposit of amount would also be to the advantage of the present appellant, inasmuch as with regard to the amount deposited, the further interest would be arreste