Competent Authority cum Special LAO, Keonjhar vs Dillip Kumar Pati

Arindam Sinha, J

1. Mr. Das, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, challenge in this writ petition is primarily against order dated 2nd November, 2021, passed by the Executing Court in respect of an award that carries a mistake. The mistake not having been corrected, the award cannot be executed.

He submits, the award was passed by the Collector-cum-Arbitrator, N.-6 Project, Keonjhar but mistakenly said to be by Arbitrator, NH-215 Project, Keonjhar. Direction in impugned execution order is upon Competent Authority-cum-Special Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) NH-6 Project, Keonjhar to cause effect to order dated 24th November, 2018 passed by Collector-cum-Arbitrator NH-6 Project, Keonjhar.

Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party and on query from Court submits, the award was passed by Collector-cum-Arbitrator NH-6 Project, Keonjhar. He submits further, that may not be significant since the Collector is arbitrator on references including NH-215 Project, Keonjhar. Mr. Das respond by relying on section 33 in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, providing for correction of mistake. He submits further, his client's petition for setting aside the award was on delay and thereby rejected.

The  direction  in  impugned  execution  order  dated  2nd November, 2021 for execution of award passed by Collector-cum-Arbitrator NH-6 Project appears to be unenforceable since the award says it was made by the Collector-cum-Arbitrator NH-215 Project. Parties appear to be ad-idem that the mistake is in the award. As such, the Executing Court can only execute the award passed and if there is mistake therein, said Court has to deliberate on whether the award is still executable. This has not been done by impugned order.

Mr. Das submits further, the mistake in the award was brought to notice of the Executing Court but by order dated 22nd October, 2021, said Court rejected the contention. Subsequent thereto opposite party filed petition for amendment of the execution application. By order dated 22nd October, 2021, the application was allowed and thereafter impugned order made.

It is clear that procedure adopted by the Executing Court suffers from irregularity as well as illegality. There cannot be execution when the award carries mistake. The law provides for correction of mistake under section 33. The procedure adopted is irregular in correcting only the cause title of the execution application and illegal as it renders the provision of section 33, redundant. Section 33 also provides for enlargement of time, within which a party to the reference can apply for correction of the award. In the circumstances, impugned order is set aside and quashed. Parties are required to act in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of.

..........................