Patna High Court
Rina Devi @ Reena DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable; enforcement of the arbitral award must be sought under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, not via Article 226.
Summary
Rina Devi challenged the classification of her land, acquired for the Gaya‑Hisua‑Rajgir Highway, as agricultural. An arbitrator‑cum‑Commissioner held that the land should be treated as residential and directed payment accordingly. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking enforcement of that award, while the Bihar State Road Development Corporation appealed the award and later filed a restoration petition. The High Court examined whether a writ petition is the proper remedy for enforcing an arbitral award, noting that Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides for enforcement through the civil courts and that the award could be challenged only under Section 34 within the prescribed time. The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable and directed the petitioner to approach the arbitrator‑cum‑Commissioner for enforcement under Section 36, thereby disposing of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is the appropriate remedy for the enforcement of an arbitral award.
- Whether Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1960/1996 governs the enforcement of the award.
- Whether the petition is barred by the time‑limit provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1960 — s. 34, 36
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 34, 36
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. Rule 26
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Enforcement of award
- Section 36
- Article 226
- Land acquisition
- Residential land
- Compensation
- Time limit Section 34
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7172 of 2023
======================================================
Rina Devi @ Reena Devi Wife of Jiban Kumar @ Jeevan Kumar Resident of
Village- Hisua, P.S.- Hisua, District- Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
3. The District Magistrate, Nawada.
4. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Nawada.
5. The Additional Collector, Nawada.
6. The Chief Manager, (Tech.), Bihar State Road Development Corporation
Limited (B.S.R.D.C.L.), Project Complementation Unit, Rajgir at Gaya.
7. The Additional Chief General Manager (Tech.), Bihar State Road
Development Corporation Limited (B.S.R.D.C.L.), Project
Complementation Unit, Rajgir at Gaya.
8. The Sub Divisional Officer, Nawada.
9. The Circle Officer, Hisua (Nawada), District- Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anil Kumar
For the State : Mr. Nwtan Sahay, A.C. to AAG-12.
For respondentNo.6 & 7 : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-03-2026
Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner has prayed for grant of following
relief :-
“1. That this is an application for issuance
of an appropriate writ / writs directing the respondent
authorities for compliance of the order dated
23.08.2022 passed in Arbitration Case No.225 of
2020 by the Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner, Magadh
Division, Gaya (respondent No.2) in which the award
Patna High Court CWJC No.7172 of 2023 dt.10-03-2026
2/8
No.27 decided by competent authorities-cum-Land
Acquisition Officer, Nawada (respondent No.4) in
Land Acquisition Case No.02 of 2019-20 with respect
to the land appertaining to Khata No.126, Plot
NO.200 has been cancelled with respondent No.4 has
been directed to decide the award by treating land in
question, as a residential land in place of agricu8lture
land in the light of letter no.5021 dated 18..12.2017
issued by Registrar General, Bihar, Patna and letter
no.150/89 dated 15.02.2018 issued by Principal
Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms as also Rule 26
of RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
3. The matter relates to a piece of land under Circle
Panchu, Thana No.63, Khata No.126, Khesra No.200 (10 decimal)
in the district of Nawada. The said land of the petitioner was
acquired for construction of Gaya Hisua Rajgir Highway (NH-82)
and considering her land to be agricultural, the award was
prepared.
4. Aggrieved by the said categorisation of land, the
petitioner moved before the Arbitrator-cum-Commissioner,
Magadh Division, Gaya in Arbitration Case No.225 of 2025 (Rina
Devi Vs. Competent District Land Acquisition Officer, Nawada
and others). After hearing the parties, the Arbitrator vide order
dated 23.08.2022 came to the conclusion that the land of the
petitioner has been wrongly categorized and it should be under
Patna High Court CWJC No.7172 of 2023 dt.10-03-2026
3/8
residential one. Accordingly direction was given to make payment
considering it to be a residential land (Annexure 3 to the petition).
5. Now, the petitioner has come for its execution by
filing the writ petition.
6. Learned counsel representing the Bihar State Road
Development Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Corporation’) submits that aggrieved with the said order dated
23.08.2022, the Corporation has preferred Misc. (Arbitration)
Appeal Case No.08 of 2023, which came to be dismissed for
default on 19.01.2024. Thereafter, they preferred restoration
petition bearing Misc. No.1 of 2026 which is presently pending.
7. Learned counsel representing ‘the Corporation’
further submits that in any case, under Section 36 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Act’) power of enforcement of the order has been given to
the Arbitrator.
8. The further submission is that the Division Bench
also took the same view in the case of Project Director, National
National Highway Authority, Araria and Anr. Vs. Md. Gufran
Alam and Ors. in L.P.A. No.1289 of 2011 disposed of on
16.08.2013.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7172 of 2023 dt.10-03-2026
4/8
9. It is appropriate to incorporate Section 36 of ‘the Act’
which reads as follows :-
36. Enforcement.-(1) Where the time for making
an application to set aside the arbitral award under section
34 has expired, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section
(2), such award shall be enforced in accordance with the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908),
in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court.
(2) Where an application to set aside the arbitral
award has been filed in the Court under section 34, the
filing of such an application shall not by itself render that
award unenforceable, unless the Court grants an order of
stay of the operation of the said arbitral award in
accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3), on a
separate application made for that purpose.
(3) Upon filing of an application under sub-
section (2) for stay of the operation of the arbitral award,
the Court may, subject to such conditions as it may deem fit,
grant stay of the operation of such award for reasons to be
recorded in writing:
Provided that the Court shall, while considering
the application for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral
award for payment of money, have due regard to the
provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908):]
[Provided further that where the Court is
satisfied that a prima facie case is made out that, -
(a) the arbitration agreement or contract which
is the basis of the award;
Patna High Court CWJC No.7172 of 2023 dt.10-03-2026
5/8
(b) the making of the award, was induced or
effected by fraud or corruption, it shall stay the award
unconditionally pending disposal of the challenge under
section 34 to the award. Explanation. For the removal of
doubts, it is hereby clarified that the above proviso shall
apply to all Court cases arising out of or in relation to
arbitral proceedings, irrespective of whether the arbitral or
Court proceedings were commenced prior to or after the
commencement of the Arbitration and Conciliation
(Amendment) Act, 2015 (3 of 2016).]
10. This Court further records the order of the Division
Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Project Director,
NHAI, Araria (supra) case and concluding paragraph records as
under :-
“We may look to the certain provisions of the
Act of 1956 and the Act of 1996 which are relevant for
resolution of dispute before us. Section 3-G of the Act of
1956 provides for determination of amount of
compensation by the Competent Authority. Sub-section (5)
thereof empowers either of the parties aggrieved by the
award of the Competent Authority to seek arbitration
against such award. Sub-section (6) of Section 3-G of the
said Act provides that the proceeding before the Arbitrator
shall be regulated by the provisions contained in the Act
of 1956. Section 3-11 of the Act of 1956 provides for
deposit and payment of amount. Sub-section (1) thereof
provides for deposit of the amount of compensation with
the Competent Authority. Sub-section (2) thereof provides
for payment of the amount to the claimants. Sub-section
(6) thereof provides for deposit of the amount of difference
Patna High Court CWJC No.7172 of 2023 dt.10-03-2026
6/8
in compensation awarded by the Arbitrator. It is this sub-
section (6) which is pressed into service by the writ
petitioner.
As recorded hereinabove, the proceedings
before the Arbitrator are governed by the Act of 1996.
Section 34 of the Act of 1996 provides for a remedy
against the arbitral award by an application for setting
aside the arbitral award before the Court. The "Court" is
defined under Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of
the Act of 1996 to mean, "the principal civil Court of
original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High
Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction,
having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the
subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the
subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any civil
Court of a grade inferior to such principal civil Court, or
any Court of Small Causes." Hence, it is evident that the
remedy against the arbitral award lies before the civil
Court. Section 36 of the Act of 1996 provides for
enforcement of the arbitral award under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 in the same manner as if it were a decree
of the Court. Thus, the statutory remedy for enforcement
of the arbitral award made under Section 3-G (5) of the
Act of 1956 lies before the civil Court.
In view of the statutory remedy for execution of
the arbitral award being available, a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution would not lie. The learned
single Judge has erred in entertaining the writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution in the subject matter.
For the aforesaid reason, the Appeal is
allowed. Impugned order dated 20th May 2011 made on
Patna High Court CWJC No.7172 of 2023 dt.10-03-2026
7/8
C.W.J.C. No. 7179 of 2011 is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 7179
of 2011 is dismissed.
(Emphasis added)
11. This Court has taken note of the fact that the
Arbitrator passed the order on 23.08.2022 and ‘the Corporation’
preferred a petition challenging the order only on 02.06.2023, i.e.,
after nine months.
12. In this context, this Court must take note of the
Section 34(3) of ‘the Act’ which reads as follows :-
“34(3) An application for setting aside
may not be made after three months have elapsed
from the date on which the party making that
application had received the arbitral award or, if a
request had been made under section 33, from the
date on which that request had been disposed of by
the arbitral tribunal:
Provided that if the Court is satisfied that
the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause
from making the application within the said period
of three months it may entertain the application
within a further period of thirty days, but not
thereafter.
13. This Court has taken note of the submission of the
the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition has been
filed beyond time, however, as it is presently pending before a
competent Court, it refrains from making any further comment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.7172 of 2023 dt.10-03-2026
8/8
14. However, Section 36 of ‘the Act’ clearly protects
the petitioner. An order has been passed in his favour and the land
has been categorized as residential. In that background, it would
be appropriate that she approaches the Arbitrator-cum-Divisional
Commission, Magadh Division, Gaya for the enforcement of the
Award under Section 36 of ‘the Act’.
15. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this
writ petition is disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
sanjeev/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 14.03.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.