High Court

3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that an order has been passed for payment of the insufficient Court fees. He draws my attention to a similar order passed on 23.01.2025 wherein this Court had directed that the petitioner shall pay an amount Rs.10/- and Rs.20/- which was found to be deficient and the Executing Court shall decide the matter in accordance with law.

4. The counsel for the respondent at this stage, argues that admittedly an award was passed under Section 3(b) of the National Highways Act and the petitioner being aggrieved against the said award, what the matter referred for decision before the Arbitrator which too has been decided in terms of the mandate of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act. It is further admitted that, the application filed under Section 34, challenging the award has been dismissed and an appeal against the said is still pending under Section 37, however, no interim order has been passed in the said appeal. The counsel for the respondent argues that in terms of the powers conferred by virtue of Section 9 (aa) of N.H. Act, the manner of deposit of amount has been decided by the Central Government by issuing Rules, which are known as National Highways (manner of depositing the amount by the Central Government; making requisite funds available to the competent authority for acquisition of land) Rules, 2019 have been enacted.

5. My attention is drawn to Rule 3 which is as under:- "3. The manner of making requisite funds available to the competent authority shall be as follows:- (1) Subject to provisions of the Act, the executing agency authorised by the Central Government in this behalf, shall open and maintain an account with one or more Scheduled Commercial Banks for remittance of the amount for land acquisition across the country, with arrangements for access to such account by the competent authority for specific Jurisdiction as per authorisation of limits by the executing agency. The Executing Agency shall, on the demand raised by the competent authority before announcement of the award, issue requisite authorisation limits in favour of the competent authority for withdrawal of amount from such account as per requirements from time to time for disbursement to the landowners or persons interested therein through an electronic banking mechanism as per extant Reserve Bank of India regulations and the said authorisation limits, revolving in nature, shall entitle the competent authority to withdraw money from such account as per requirements, without any further reference to the land acquiring agency, for disbursement to the landowners or persons interested therein, follows:- (a) The amount determined under section 3(G) of the Act within fifteen days of the raising of demand by the competent authority, (b) Where the amount determined by the Arbitrator under sub-section (7) of Section 3G of the Act is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess amount, together with interest, if any, awarded by the Arbitrator, within 30 days of the communication of Arbitrator's award, unless such Award has been further challenged by either of the aggrieved parties. Explanation. The authorisation limits, revolving in nature, are explained with the help of an illustration as under:- Say, the amount of award is Rs. 200 crore for which the CALA places demand on the acquiring/executing agency. The executing agency shall issue an authorisation in favour of CALA to draw an amount up to Rs. 200 crore from the Central account, in limits of Rs. 50.00 crore at any point in time. As the CALA keeps disbursing the amount, the limit of Rs. 50.00 crore shall keep getting automatically recouped and so on till the utilisation of total amount of authorisation Rs. 200 crore. (ii) The executing agency, authorised by the Central Government in this behalf, shall ensure that the requisite account is maintained with a Scheduled Commercial Bank, against which an authorisation limit is issued in favour of the competent authority for disbursement of the compensation amount, duly determined under Section 3(G) of the Act, to the landowners or persons interested therein. Further, the said authorisation limit shall be utilised by the competent authority for the intended purpose of disbursement and shall be duly reflected in the books of accounts of the executing agency for the purpose of proper monitoring and reconciliation thereof and any interest earned thereon shall be credited into the said account and shall belong to the executing agency. (iii) In cases where the executing agency of a project is any State Government or Union territory, the amount shall preferably be disbursed through the Public Financial Management System of the Ministry of Finance. (iv) The competent authority shall, in turn, disburse the compensation amount to the landowners or the persons interested therein preferably by electronically crediting the said amount into their respective bank accounts."

6. In terms of the said prescription, it is argued that that till there is a final adjudication and any matter is pending, amounts cannot be deposited till the further challenge to the award is resolved. He intends to contend that once, objections are filed under Section 34, in terms of Rule 3(b), no amount can be deposited and further argues that as application under Section 37 of the Arbitration is pending, no amounts are required to be deposited. The said argument on the face of it is malicious.

7. Admittedly, in terms of the provisions of National Highways Act, the award can be passed in respect of there being discontent with regard to the amount awarded under Section 3G(1), it is essential to notice that Section 3G(6) provides for applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to every arbitration done under the said act.

8. The Rules, relied upon by the counsel for the respondent, said to have been framed in exercise of power under Section 9(2)(aa) only indicates and provides for manner in which the demands for amounts are to be requisitioned by the Executing authority, even the Rule 3 of the Rules framed in the year 2019, prescribes for manner of making requisite funds to be made available to the Executing authority has been specified. Rule B of the said Rules 3, prescribes that the amount in excess determined in an award by the arbitrator shall be provided within a period of thirty days of the communication of the arbitrator award unless such award has been further challenged. Once the challenge has been rejected under section 34, it is incumbent to provide for the amount as determined by the arbitrator to the competent authority. In any case, neither the Central Government nor the competent authority can plead non-availability of the funds to deny the execution of the award which is being done in pursuance to the mandate of the Arbitration Act. The Rules in question cannot supersede the mandate of the Arbitration Act and the amounts have to be executed in terms of the descriptions contained in the Arbitration Act, the Rules cannot be pleaded by the respondent authority to deny the just claim as has been awarded by the arbitrator unless there is a stay of execution by the competent authority.

9. In view thereof, the present petition is disposed of with direction to decide the execution application with all expedition within a period of two months considering the fact that the land in question was acquired in the year 2005. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Arun

3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that an order has been passed for payment of the insufficient Court fees. He draws my attention to a similar order passed on 23.01.2025 wherein this Court had directed that the petitioner shall pay an amount Rs.10/- and Rs.20/- which was found to be deficient and the Executing Court shall decide the matter in accordance with law.

4. The counsel for the respondent at this stage, argues that admittedly an award was passed under Section 3(b) of the National Highways Act and the petitioner being aggrieved against the said award, what the matter referred for decision before the Arbitrator which too has been decided in terms of the mandate of Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act. It is further admitted that, the application filed under Section 34, challenging the award has been dismissed and an appeal against the said is still pending under Section 37, however, no interim order has been passed in the said appeal. The counsel for the respondent argues that in terms of the powers conferred by virtue of Section 9 (aa) of N.H. Act, the manner of deposit of amount has been decided by the Central Government by issuing Rules, which are known as National Highways (manner of depositing the amount by the Central Government; making requisite funds available to the competent authority for acquisition of land) Rules, 2019 have been enacted.

5. My attention is drawn to Rule 3 which is as under:- "3. The manner of making requisite funds available to the competent authority shall be as follows:- (1) Subject to provisions of the Act, the executing agency authorised by the Central Government in this behalf, shall open and maintain an account with one or more Scheduled Commercial Banks for remittance of the amount for land acquisition across the country, with arrangements for access to such account by the competent authority for specific Jurisdiction as per authorisation of limits by the executing agency. The Executing Agency shall, on the demand raised by the competent authority before announcement of the award, issue requisite authorisation limits in favour of the competent authority for withdrawal of amount from such account as per requirements from time to time for disbursement to the landowners or persons interested therein through an electronic banking mechanism as per extant Reserve Bank of India regulations and the said authorisation limits, revolving in nature, shall entitle the competent authority to withdraw money from such account as per requirements, without any further reference to the land acquiring agency, for disbursement to the landowners or persons interested therein, follows:- (a) The amount determined under section 3(G) of the Act within fifteen days of the raising of demand by the competent authority, (b) Where the amount determined by the Arbitrator under sub-section (7) of Section 3G of the Act is in excess of the amount determined by the competent authority, the excess amount, together with interest, if any, awarded by the Arbitrator, within 30 days of the communication of Arbitrator's award, unless such Award has been further challenged by either of the aggrieved parties. Explanation. The authorisation limits, revolving in nature, are explained with the help of an illustration as under:- Say, the amount of award is Rs. 200 crore for which the CALA places demand on the acquiring/executing agency. The executing agency shall issue an authorisation in favour of CALA to draw an amount up to Rs. 200 crore from the Central account, in limits of Rs. 50.00 crore at any point in time. As the CALA keeps disbursing the amount, the limit of Rs. 50.00 crore shall keep getting automatically recouped and so on till the utilisation of total amount of authorisation Rs. 200 crore. (ii) The executing agency, authorised by the Central Government in this behalf, shall ensure that the requisite account is maintained with a Scheduled Commercial Bank, against which an authorisation limit is issued in favour of the competent authority for disbursement of the compensation amount, duly determined under Section 3(G) of the Act, to the landowners or persons interested therein. Further, the said authorisation limit shall be utilised by the competent authority for the intended purpose of disbursement and shall be duly reflected in the books of accounts of the executing agency for the purpose of proper monitoring and reconciliation thereof and any interest earned thereon shall be credited into the said account and shall belong to the executing agency. (iii) In cases where the executing agency of a project is any State Government or Union territory, the amount shall preferably be disbursed through the Public Financial Management System of the Ministry of Finance. (iv) The competent authority shall, in turn, disburse the compensation amount to the landowners or the persons interested therein preferably by electronically crediting the said amount into their respective bank accounts."

6. In terms of the said prescription, it is argued that that till there is a final adjudication and any matter is pending, amounts cannot be deposited till the further challenge to the award is resolved. He intends to contend that once, objections are filed under Section 34, in terms of Rule 3(b), no amount can be deposited and further argues that as application under Section 37 of the Arbitration is pending, no amounts are required to be deposited. The said argument on the face of it is malicious.

7. Admittedly, in terms of the provisions of National Highways Act, the award can be passed in respect of there being discontent with regard to the amount awarded under Section 3G(1), it is essential to notice that Section 3G(6) provides for applicability of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to every arbitration done under the said act.

8. The Rules, relied upon by the counsel for the respondent, said to have been framed in exercise of power under Section 9(2)(aa) only indicates and provides for manner in which the demands for amounts are to be requisitioned by the Executing authority, even the Rule 3 of the Rules framed in the year 2019, prescribes for manner of making requisite funds to be made available to the Executing authority has been specified. Rule B of the said Rules 3, prescribes that the amount in excess determined in an award by the arbitrator shall be provided within a period of thirty days of the communication of the arbitrator award unless such award has been further challenged. Once the challenge has been rejected under section 34, it is incumbent to provide for the amount as determined by the arbitrator to the competent authority. In any case, neither the Central Government nor the competent authority can plead non-availability of the funds to deny the execution of the award which is being done in pursuance to the mandate of the Arbitration Act. The Rules in question cannot supersede the mandate of the Arbitration Act and the amounts have to be executed in terms of the descriptions contained in the Arbitration Act, the Rules cannot be pleaded by the respondent authority to deny the just claim as has been awarded by the arbitrator unless there is a stay of execution by the competent authority.

9. In view thereof, the present petition is disposed of with direction to decide the execution application with all expedition within a period of two months considering the fact that the land in question was acquired in the year 2005. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 Arun