JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Vide this common order, CR No.259 of 2022 titled National Highway Authority of India and another Vs. Yashpreet Singh and another, CR No.831 of 2022 titled National Highway Authority of India and another Vs. Yashpreet Singh and another, CR No.3150 of 2021 titled National Highway Authority of India and another Vs. Parampal Kaur and another, CR No.3153 of 2021 titled National Highway Authority of India and another Vs. Dilbag Singh @ Jagseer Singh and another, CR No.3155 of 2021 titled Union of India Vs. Sandeep Kumar and others and CR No.3164 of 2021 titled Executive Engineer Vs. Rainu Bala and others are being decided.

2. Since common questions of law in the aforesaid cases are involved, therefore, facts are being culled out from CR No.259 of 2022.

3. Petitioners in the aforesaid cases except in CR No.831 of 2022 have assailed the order dated 26.10.2021 passed by the Executing Court, dismissing the application under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and order dated 26.10.2021 to the extent, whereby the executing Court has directed the petitioners to deposit the awarded amount passed by the Arbitrator.

4. In CR No.831 of 2022, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot, vide which the application under Order 21 Rule 29 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed as well as the order of even date i.e. 18.02.2022 to the extent where the executing Court has directed the petitioners to deposit the decretal amount till 11.03.2022.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award was passed by the Arbitrator on 18.01.2019. Respondent No.1 filed an application for correction of award under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the same was allowed by the Arbitrator on 23.01.2019. On 13.03.2019,

Union of India filed an objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Court at Bathinda. The case was registered vide ARB No.15 of 2019 and notice was issued to the respondents accordingly. Respondent No.1 has appeared through his counsel on 20.04.2019. In the execution petition filed by respondent No.1, the executing Court issued notice on 07.11.2019. Petitioner filed an application under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 151 CPC for transfer of execution proceedings to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda on the ground that the land is situated in Bathinda and the parties are also residents of Bathinda. The aforesaid application under Section 42 of the Act for transfer of execution petition to the Court of competent jurisdiction at Bathinda has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 26.10.2021.

6. On 01.09.2021, reply to the application for stay was filed by respondent No.1 and the order was passed by the Additional District Judge on 11.02.2022. With reference to the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had acquired the land for widening/four lanning of NH-15 of Bathinda Section in District Bathinda from 265.700 to 287.215 KM.

7. Respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act before the Arbitrator, which was allowed vide award dated 18/23/01/2019. Against the aforesaid award of the Arbitrator, NHAI filed an objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the District Court at Bathinda as the acquired land is situated in District Bathinda. Respondent No.1 filed an execution petition in the District Court at Faridkot as the arbitration proceedings have taken place at Faridkot.

8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the executing Court at Faridkot has no jurisdiction to carry on with the execution proceedings as the assets of the petitioners are not located in Faridkot. With this background, the petitioners have submitted that the execution proceedings fil