Patna High Court
Shanti DeviversusThe Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Pvt. Ltd.
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The High Court held that the petitioner had no entitlement to a writ of mandamus because the award had been paid and the correct remedy was to approach a civil court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Summary
Shanti Devi, the petitioner, owned land that was acquired for a railway over‑bridge and was dissatisfied with the compensation paid. She approached the Arbitrator‑cum‑Divisional Commissioner, who prepared an award and indicated that payment had been made, which the petitioner received. Unsatisfied, she filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to consider her case for a higher award and interest. The respondents argued that any further remedy lay under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that the petitioner should have approached a civil court. The Court observed that the petitioner had already received the award amount and had not pursued the appropriate civil remedy, thus she had “missed the bus.” Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel payment of an arbitration award after the award has been executed?
- Is the appropriate remedy for the petitioner to approach a civil court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 rather than the High Court?
- The High Court's jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in these circumstances.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- arbitration award
- mandamus
- writ jurisdiction
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
- civil remedy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13574 of 2023
======================================================
Shanti Devi Wife of Bal Krishan Singh, Resident of village- Tenduni Tola,
Yogi Beer Dumranv Road, Bikramganj, P.S.- Bikramganj, District- Rohtas at
Sasaram. At present- S-21/B- 367 Indra Kalyan Vihar, Okhla, Phase 1, New
Delhi, South Delhi, Delhi- 110020
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Pvt. Ltd.
through Chief Project Manager, Mughalsarai, Varanasi
2. The Deputy Project Manager, Eastern Dedicated Freight Corridor
Corporation of India Pvt. Ltd., Mughalsarai, Varanasi.
3. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department
Govt. of Bihar, Patna
4. The Arbitrator cum Commissioner Patna Division, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.
6. The competent Authority cum District land Acquisition officer, District-
Rohtas
7. The Circle Officer, Sasaram, District Rohtas.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Arti Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Birendra Pd. Singh, AC to SC-19
For resp. nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Tiwari Shwetketu, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2026 Heard Mrs. Arti Kumari, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The present application has been preferred:
for issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other writ or writs, direction
or directions to the respondents authorities to
consider the case of the petitioner for grant and
to pay the award amount of the land of the
petitioner, considering the land of the petitioner
as Branch Road (Residential) along with interest
in accordance with law.
3. The petitioner earlier owned a land under Nagar
Patna High Court CWJC No.13574 of 2023(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/2
Parishad- Sasaram which was acquired for railway over-bridge
construction. The petitioner is aggrieved by the amount that was paid
and accordingly, moved before the Arbitrator.
4. It was taken by the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional
Commissioner, Patna in Rail Arbitration Case No. 23 of 2021 and
recording that an award has been prepared and the payment has been
made according to the category there which has been received by the
petitioner. In that background, no case is made out, it was rejected
(Annexure- 3 to the petition).
5. Aggrieved, the present petition.
6. The stand of the respondents is/are that against the said
order passed by the Arbitrator, the petitioner ought to have moved
before the Competent Civil Court under Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996.
7. This Court can only record that the petitioner has
missed the bus. Without commenting further on the merit of the case
and granting liberty to act in accordance with law, now that the
payment has already been received by her, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…