The court upheld the Arbitrator's award on property transactions, emphasizing the necessity of permissions under applicable land laws while affirming that a plausible ruling can stand even with insufficient reasoning.

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) This Petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) setting up a challenge to the Award dated 29 March 2022 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator. By the impugned Award, the learned Arbitrator has issued a declaration that the Agreement dated 10 July 1981 and the Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding dated 30 July 1997 are valid subsisting and binding on the Petitioner. The learned Arbitrator has further declared that the Agreement dated 11 August 2010 is valid, subsisting and binding on the Petitioners. The learned Arbitrator also ordered specific performance for doing all acts, deeds, matters, things and to sign and execute and register all documents and writings as may be necessary for development/redevelopment of suit property as slum rehabilitation scheme and to vest the same in favour of body of society/societies to be formed in respect of rehab and free sale of buildings/flats in the suit properties. The learned Arbitrator has also declared that the Agreement dated 25 November 2014 entered into by Petitioners No.1 to 23 in favour of Petitioner No.24, Power of Attorney dated 25 November 2014, Memorandum of Understanding dated 25 November 2014 and all other acts and deeds done and rights/agreements executed in favour of Petitioner No.24 are illegal, non-est, null and void and not binding on the Respondent. The learned Arbitrator has also passed an order of injunction to restrain the Petitioners from filing or prosecuting any proposal for declaration of suit properties as slum rehabilitation area or for acquisition thereof.

FACTS

2) The dispute amongst the parties concern following three properties, situated at Malad (East), Mumbai.

(i) Survey No. 255/2/2, C.T.S. No. 677A admeasuring 7201.92 square meters as per the document and 6510.50 square meters as per the Property Card;

(ii) Survey No.255/3, C.T.S. No.676 admeasuring 787.71 square meters as per the document and 714.10 square meters as per the Property Card; and

(iii) Survey No.267/1/1, C.T.S. No.610A/1/C admeasuring 1125.35 square meters as per the document and 786 square meters as per the Property Card;

The above three properties have been collectively referred to as ‘the suit properties’ in the Arbitration proceedings. According to Petitioners, the suit properties are Adivasi (Tribal) lands.

3) According to the Petitioners, Mr. Janglya Shanwar Khanjode became deemed purchaser of the suit properties in addition to other lands which are together described in the Petition as the larger land under the provi- sions of Section 32G of the then Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (now renamed as Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948) (BTAL Act). A Certificate under Section 32M of the BTAL Act dated 8 May 1981 was issued and Mutation Entry No.1509 was certified. After the death of Mr. Janglya Shanwar Khanjode the names of nine legal heirs were mutated to the revenue records. Petitioner