JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. Dhiraj Kumar Wankhede, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Trivikram Nayak, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. Priyankesh Chandrakar, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No.6 & 7. 2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.3051 of 2020, holding the writ petition to be maintainable and thereby dismissing the objection filed by the appellants herein questioning the maintainability of the writ petition. 3. The records of the writ petition are also before this Court. 4. The case of the petitioners in the writ petition is that in respect of acquisition of land of the petitioners acquired for the purpose of widening of road at National Highway No.200 (New No.130), an award dated 16.01.2013 was passed in case No.28A-82/2010-2011 and respondent No.7 in the writ petition, i.e., National Highways Authority of India (for short ‘NHAI’), through Project Director, was directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.9,69,388/-. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed an application under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, for short, the Act of 1956, and the Arbitrator had passed an order dated 31.10.2019 in Case No.180A-82/2018- 2019, directing the NHAI to disburse the amount of Rs.24,83,550/- under Section 38 of the Right to Fair Compensation Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, for short, the Act of 2013. 6. After addition of solatium amount, the total compensation payable had been fixed at Rs.1,32,11,700/-. 7. The writ petition was filed seeking following reliefs : “(i) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire record concerning the case of the petitioner from the respondent authorities for its kind perusal. (ii) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ directing the respondent authorities to grant the amount of compensation as calculated by the memo dated 09.12.2019 by the competent authority on the basis of the order dated 31.10.2019. (iii) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 8. (iii) Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit or proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 8. In the objection filed by the present appellants (respondent No.7 in the writ petition) questioning the maintainability of the writ petition, it is stated that respondent No.7 had filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘A & C Act’), registered as MJC (Civil) No. 239 of 2021 before the District Judge at Bilaspur on 21.03.2021 and that when such an application is pending at the instance of respondent No.7 in the writ petition, the writ petition was not maintainable. 9. The learned Single Judge noted that as the writ petition was filed for compliance of the award passed, the same is maintainable in law. 10. In the case of National Highways Authority of India vs. Sheetal Jaidev Vade and Others, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1070, the facts were to the effect that in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court had directed the NHAI to deposit the entire compensation amount as awarded by the Arbitrator and permitted the original land owners/original writ petitioners to withdraw the amount. In the writ petition, following reliefs were sought for : “(a) This Writ Petition may kindly be allowed. (b) That, by way of writ of mandamus of the direction like in nature the respondents No.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to deposit the amount with respondent No.3 in pursuance of the award dated 12.06.2018 vide No.2016/LA/NH-351/CR-01 passed by the respondent No.3 forthwith. (c) That, by way of writ of mandamus of the directions like in nature the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to make the payment to petitioners forthwith after the respondents No.1 and 2 deposit the amount.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-11 has observed that the reliefs which have been sought for by the writ petitioners were in the nature of execution of the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court. In paragraphs-12 & 13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : “12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-11 has observed that the reliefs which have been sought for by the writ petitioners were in the nature of execution of the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court. In paragraphs-12 & 13, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows : “12. Apart from the fact that the award dated 12.06.2018 has been challenged by the NHAI by initiating proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act which are reported to be pending, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the reliefs to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, when the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/ Court is to be executed by initiating an execution proceeding before the concerned Executing Court. But, by passing the impugned order/directions the High Court has virtually converted itself into Executing Court. Therefore, once the original writ petitioner was having an efficacious, alternative remedy to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, by initiating an appropriate execution proceeding before the competent Executing Court, the High Court ought to have relegated the original writ petitioners to avail the said remedy instead of entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was filed to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court. If the High Courts convert itself to the Executing Court and entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal/Court, the High Courts would be flooded with the writ petitions to execute awards passed by the learned Arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitral Court. 13. We disapprove the entertaining of such writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to execute the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal/Court, without relegating the judgment creditor in whose favour the award is passed to file an execution proceeding before the competent Executing Court.” 12. It is an admitted position that the NHAI, i.e., National Highways Authority of India had filed an application under Section 34 of the A & C Act and that is pending disposal. 13. The nature of reliefs prayed for by the petitioners go to show that petitioners had sought for execution of the award. It is an admitted position that the NHAI, i.e., National Highways Authority of India had filed an application under Section 34 of the A & C Act and that is pending disposal. 13. The nature of reliefs prayed for by the petitioners go to show that petitioners had sought for execution of the award. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheetal Jaidev (supra) deprecated entertainment of such writ petitions instead of relegating the petitioners to avail alternative efficacious remedy available as, if the High Courts entertain such petitions, the High Courts would convert themselves to executing courts. 14. In that view of the matter, the writ petition was clearly not maintainable. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. 15. At this juncture, Mr. Chandrakar submits that a direction may be issued to learned District Judge, Bilaspur for disposal of the MJC (Civil) No. 239 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible. 16. Mr. Wankhede has no objection to passing such an order. 17. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur will dispose of MJC (Civil) No. 239 of 2021 as expeditiously as possible. 18. No cost.